2016 (2) TMI 950 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of Cenvat credit on goods returned by the buyers as defective - Held that - The documents evidence of receiving back the defective goods by the appellant are on record. On the basis of these documents, the appellant is maintaining one register namely Sales Return Register, in that register, they are entering all the sales returns. There is no such provision in the Central Excise Rules that appellant is required to enter of the sales return in the input register only. The only requirement is that appellant has to maintain the records of the sales returns which appellant is maintaining. Therefore, I hold that appellant is entitled for Cenvat credit on goods received by them, it is also an admitted fact that on receipt of the goods the appellant have reprocessed the said goods and the same were cleared on payment of duty. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, same is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Denial of Cenvat credit on goods returned as defective under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of rubber compound, appealed against the denial of Cenvat credit on goods returned by buyers as defective. The appellant had cleared the goods on payment of duty, and as per Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, they were entitled to take Cenvat credit on these returned goods. However, during an audit, it was noted that the entries of returned goods were not present in the input register, leading to the denial of Cenvat credit through a show cause notice. The matter was adjudicated, resulting in the denial of Cenvat credit, demand for duty, and confirmation of penalty.

The appellant contended that they were required to maintain a record of goods returned under Rule 16, and even though the returned goods were not entered in the input register, they were separately registered in the Sales Return Register. The appellant argued that since they maintained a separate register as per the Central Excise Rules, the entries of defective goods were not mandated in the input register. It was also highlighted that the appellant did not dispute receiving the defective goods, making them eligible for Cenvat credit.

On the other hand, the Departmental Representative (DR) argued that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim for Cenvat credit. After hearing both parties, it was noted that the appellant did not physically receive any defective goods, but documentary evidence of receiving back the defective goods was on record. The appellant maintained a Sales Return Register where all sales returns were recorded, which complied with the requirement to maintain records of sales returns. There was no specific provision mandating the entry of sales returns in the input register only. The appellant had reprocessed the defective goods upon receipt and cleared them after payment of duty. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to Cenvat credit on the goods received, and the impugned order denying the credit was deemed unsustainable in the eyes of the law. The appeal was allowed, with any consequential relief granted.