2015 (5) TMI 1124 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paid defective goods received in the factory - Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that - It is an undisputed fact that the appellant had paid the duty on the final product at the time of clearance from the factory, which was returned back as defective for accomplishing the purpose indicated in Rule 16 (1) of the CER, 2002 - it is erroneous to assume that the goods were not identifiable and relatable to the duty paid documents and also it is not proper to conclude that no records have been maintained for return of defective goods. It is not in dispute that the Daily Stock Account has not been maintained properly by the appellant. CENVAT credit taken by the appellant on such duty paid defective goods received in the factory for carrying out the processes u/r 16(1) of the rules are eligible for CENVAT credit - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of Cenvat credit by the authorities below
- Interpretation of Rule 16 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002
- Eligibility of cenvat credit on duty paid defective goods received in the factory

Denial of Cenvat credit by the authorities below:
The appellant contended that Central Excise Duty had been paid on finished goods upon removal from the factory. However, when defective goods were returned by buyers, the appellant maintained records of the receipt in the RG-I register, based on original invoices. The appellant argued that since proper records were kept, showing removal of goods with duty payment and subsequent receipt of defective goods, they were entitled to cenvat credit. The authorities denied the credit, stating that the goods received back were not identifiable with the initially removed goods, thus Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 did not apply.

Interpretation of Rule 16 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002:
The Revenue argued that the goods received back were ash and broken pieces packed in bags, not equivalent to the manufactured goods initially removed by the appellant. They contended that since the received goods could not be linked to the original goods, Rule 16 did not apply, and no duty credit was permissible. However, upon review, it was found that the appellant had paid duty on the final product at clearance and properly recorded the receipt of defective goods in the Daily Stock Account (RG-1 Register) based on original invoices. The Tribunal determined that the goods were identifiable and linked to duty paid documents, rejecting the contention that no proper records were maintained for the return of defective goods.

Eligibility of cenvat credit on duty paid defective goods received in the factory:
After examining the facts, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was eligible for cenvat credit on duty paid defective goods received in the factory for processing under Rule 16(1) of the rules. The Tribunal found that the appellant had maintained adequate records and that the denial of cenvat credit by the lower authorities was not in line with statutory provisions. Consequently, the impugned order confirming the Cenvat demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.