2011 (10) TMI 100 - AT - Central Excise

Rule 16(1) of Central Excise - when the goods come back from the buyer - appellant has not taken Cenvat credit in the present case. Therefore, taking shelter of Rule 16(3) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, the authority cannot impose excise duty demand - issue involved missed question of the fact and question of law under Rule 16 - Adjudication order does not disclose any questionable conduct of the appellant causing any loss of revenue - Therefore, with the consent of both sides both stay application and appeal is disposed by this common order. Pre-deposit is waived - Adjudication nowhere disclosed what was the difficulty of the appellant to fall under Sub-rule (3) of Rule16 appellant is governed by Rule 16(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Appeal allowed

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Rule 16(1) and Rule 16(3) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 in the context of Cenvat credit denial.

Analysis:
The appellant argued that denial of Cenvat credit is not mandated by law when goods return from the buyer for Rule 16(1) purposes, and all receipt and dispatch particulars are maintained. The appellant did not claim Cenvat credit in this case, so invoking Rule 16(3) for excise duty demand is inappropriate. The appellant requested the disposal of both the stay application and the appeal. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative contended that Rule 16(3) requires permission for goods removal. The Tribunal examined the issue involving the interpretation of Rule 16 and found that the Adjudication order did not reveal any misconduct causing revenue loss by the appellant. As the difficulty mentioned in Rule 16(3) was not expressed by the appellant, the appeal was disposed of with mutual consent, waiving the pre-deposit requirement.

The Tribunal noted that the Adjudication order did not specify the appellant's difficulty falling under Rule 16(3). It was established that the appellant was governed by Rule 16(1), which only necessitates the statutory condition of recording goods movement at arrival and delivery, without any additional requirements. Since this crucial fact was undisputed, the appeal was allowed. The judgment emphasized the importance of adherence to the statutory conditions under Rule 16(1) for the movement of goods, highlighting that the appellant's compliance with these requirements warranted the allowance of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision revolved around the correct interpretation and application of Rule 16(1) and Rule 16(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in the context of Cenvat credit denial. The judgment underscored the significance of maintaining proper records of goods movement as mandated by Rule 16(1) and clarified that the absence of specific difficulties expressed under Rule 16(3) led to the disposal of the appeal in favor of the appellant.