2015 (5) TMI 1127 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - returned defective goods - Rule 16 (1) of Central Excise Rules 2002 - Held that - upon receipt of the goods, the same have been duly reflected/ entered in the Daily Stock Account i.e. RG-1 Register maintained by the appellant. The entries have been made in the said register on the basis of the original invoices, in the cover of which the goods were initially removed from the factory - 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. CENVAT credit taken by the appellant on such duty paid defective goods received in the factory for carrying out the processes under Rule 16(1) of the rules are eligible for cenvat credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit by authorities.
2. Interpretation of Rule 16(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
3. Eligibility of cenvat credit on defective goods returned to the factory.

Analysis:
The appellant contended that Central Excise Duty was paid on finished goods upon removal from the factory. However, when defective goods were returned by buyers, the appellant maintained records in the RG-I register, as per Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and claimed cenvat credit for duty paid on the original removal. The Revenue argued that the goods received back were ash and broken pieces, not identifiable with the initially removed goods, hence Rule 16 did not apply, denying cenvat credit.

Upon review, it was established that duty was paid on the final product upon clearance from the factory, and the defective goods returned were duly reflected in the Daily Stock Account. The entries were based on original invoices of the initially removed goods, maintaining traceability. The Tribunal found that the goods were identifiable and related to duty paid documents, rejecting the argument of inadequate record-keeping by the appellant.

The Tribunal concluded that cenvat credit on duty paid defective goods, received for processing under Rule 16(1), was rightfully claimed by the appellant. The impugned order denying the credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.