2017 (10) TMI 187 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - goods returned to the appellant under rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that - The purpose of rule 16 of CER, 2002 is to enable reconditioning and further processing within the framework of legality without, in any way, compromising the rigor of maintenance of the CENVAT account. It, therefore, does not exclude the possibility of scrapping during the stage of re-manufacture and it is not in any way different from scrapping at the stage of original manufacture - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Availment of CENVAT credit on goods returned under rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
- Denial of CENVAT credit on goods cleared as scrap.
- Imposition of penalty under rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2001/2002 and section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The dispute revolves around the availment of CENVAT credit by M/s Classic Stripes Pvt Ltd on goods returned under rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant, a manufacturer of self-adhesive stickers, faced a demand for recovery of CENVAT credit amounting to 12,33,931/- on goods returned and subsequently scrapped. The original authority upheld the demand and imposed penalties, leading to the appellant challenging the impugned order.

2. The appellant argued that the goods were returned in compliance with rule 16 and that scrap generated during the manufacturing process should not disqualify the availment of CENVAT credit. Citing precedent cases, the appellant emphasized that the generation of scrap alongside finished goods is a common occurrence in manufacturing enterprises and should not impact the eligibility for CENVAT credit.

3. On the other hand, the Authorized Representative contended that rule 16 is applicable only to goods returned for processes equivalent to fresh manufacture. Referring to a Tribunal decision, it was argued that goods brought back and scrapped were denied CENVAT credit. However, a crucial distinction was made regarding the accounting of returned and scrapped goods, highlighting the importance of proper documentation.

4. The presiding Member analyzed the arguments and precedents presented. It was noted that in the case at hand, the scrapping of self-adhesive stickers was duly recorded, and duty payment details were maintained in the monthly returns. This crucial distinction from the cited case led to the conclusion that the denial of CENVAT credit was not warranted in the present situation due to the proper documentation and adherence to legal requirements.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the impugned order lacked a legal basis. The purpose of rule 16 is to facilitate reconditioning and processing while maintaining CENVAT compliance. Scrapping during the manufacturing process, whether original or re-manufacture, should not hinder the availment of CENVAT credit. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, emphasizing the importance of legal foundation in such decisions.