2017 (9) TMI 615 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - rejected goods - Rule 16 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that - similar issue decided in the appellant own case M/s. Tirupati Structurals Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Ghaziabad 2015 (4) TMI 1032 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that goods returned by the appellant are not waste and scrap/ash and they are rejected goods and credit remains allowed - appellant has correctly taken the Cenvat credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of Cenvat credit under Rule 16(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the denial of Cenvat credit under Rule 16(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal referred to earlier decisions in the appellant's own case where it was held that the appellant had correctly availed the credit on defective goods returned to the factory for processing. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods were identifiable and related to duty-paid documents, as reflected in the Daily Stock Account. It was noted that the entries in the register were based on original invoices, and despite some discrepancies in maintaining the Daily Stock Account, the credit was deemed eligible. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal based on the precedent decision in the appellant's favor.

In another instance, the Tribunal considered a similar situation where the appellant had received rejected goods for which Cenvat credit was claimed. The Commissioner (Appeals) had determined that the returned goods were not waste or scrap but rejected goods, a finding accepted by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that the show cause notice was not sustainable as it incorrectly alleged the receipt of waste and scrap instead of rejected goods. Relying on the Commissioner's observation and the absence of challenge to it, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.

The Tribunal reiterated that the facts of the case were akin to earlier show cause notices faced by the appellant, leading to a consistent application of the precedent set in the appellant's favor. Based on the established principles from previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had correctly availed the Cenvat credit, rendering the impugned order devoid of merit. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

In summary, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's right to claim Cenvat credit on defective and rejected goods returned to the factory for processing, emphasizing the importance of maintaining proper records and adherence to the provisions of Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The decisions in the appellant's favor in previous cases served as a guiding precedent for the Tribunal's rulings, ensuring consistent application of the law in similar circumstances.