2011 (3) TMI 876 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - defected goods return - When the goods were received back in the factory the Respondent wanted to take benefit of Rule 16(1) of Central Excise Rules 2002 and gave intimation to the Range Superintendent regarding the fact that the goods had been returned by the dealer and they wanted to take Cenvat credit of duty paid on the returned goods - Held that -the issue of identity of the goods was not raised when the Inspector went to the factory and verified the returned goods - Further Rule 16(3) does not talk about prior permission from Commissioner for giving necessary permission - Also note that during the entire course of these events the Respondent has acted bonafidely and had taken all steps to keep the department informed - The department has not been willing to give a decision allowing his claim or disallowing the claim giving justifiable reason for such decision - This shows that during the entire proceedings the Respondent was not at fault -find that the Respondent is eligible for the refund claim.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 16(1) and Rule 16(3) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for claiming Cenvat credit on returned goods.
2. Rejection of refund claim by Assistant Commissioner based on non-compliance with Rule 16 provisions.
3. Dispute over establishing the identity of returned goods for refund eligibility.

Issue 1 - Interpretation of Rule 16(1) and Rule 16(3):
The Respondent, a manufacturer of electrical goods, sought to claim Cenvat credit on geysers returned by dealers due to defects. They followed the procedure under Rule 16(1) and Rule 16(3) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner of Central Excise denied permission for credit due to lack of prior approval before receiving the goods back. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the credit after reviewing the correspondence and stages of the process. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing the Respondent's compliance and the Commissioner's failure to provide a valid reason for denial.

Issue 2 - Rejection of Refund Claim:
The Respondent filed a refund claim for Rs.78,253, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner citing non-disclosure of process on returned goods, absence of duty paying documents, and failure to establish the identity of goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) overturned the rejection, granting the refund. The Tribunal noted that the issue of identity was not raised during verification and Rule 16(3) does not mandate prior permission for granting refunds. The Tribunal found the Respondent acted in good faith, fulfilling obligations, and held the Commissioner (Appeals) order as valid, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 3 - Dispute over Establishing Identity of Returned Goods:
The dispute centered on the establishment of the identity of the returned goods for refund eligibility. The department argued that identity was not proven, while the Respondent contended that the issue was raised later in the proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the Inspector verified the goods without questioning identity and emphasized the Respondent's proactive communication with the department. The Tribunal found the Respondent's actions genuine and faulted the Commissioner for not providing a valid reason for denial. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, granting the refund to the Respondent and rejecting the Revenue's appeal.