9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1292 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit on goods brought back in the factory - returned cigarettes - applicability of Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that - Rule 16 allows taking of credit of duty paid at the time of the removal of the goods, which are subsequently brought back to the factory for any reason - The respondent was entitled to the credit of the duty paid by them at the time of clearance of the cigarettes. In as much as, there is no dispute about the duty paid nature of the goods as also the subsequent bringing back of the same in the assessee factory, there is no infirmity in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), requiring any interference in the same - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues: Interpretation of Rule 16 for Cenvat credit on returned goods
Issue 1: Interpretation of Rule 16 for Cenvat credit on returned goods The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the Order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the denial of Cenvat credit to an appellant-company engaged in the manufacture of Cut Tobacco and Cigarettes. The appellant-company had returned certain cigarettes for remaking under Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The jurisdictional Range Officer observed discrepancies in the utilization of the retrieved tobacco and initiated proceedings against the respondent for denial of Cenvat credit amounting to ?34,72,134. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order and allowed the assessee's appeal. The issue revolved around the interpretation of Rule 16, which allows the assessee to take Cenvat credit on goods brought back to the factory for re-making or reconditioning. The Commissioner (Appeals) interpreted the rule in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that there is no restriction on bringing back duty-paid goods for re-making, provided proper accounting is maintained. Various Tribunal decisions were cited in support of the appellant's position, highlighting that the returned goods need not be used directly as inputs for the final product. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals) order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. This issue primarily focused on the correct application and interpretation of Rule 16 concerning the entitlement to Cenvat credit on returned goods for re-making, refining, or reconditioning. The judgment highlighted the importance of maintaining proper records and accounting for returned goods to avail of the credit. The Tribunal's decision aligned with previous rulings that allowed the credit on goods brought back to the factory, even if not directly used as inputs for the final product. The case underscored the significance of adherence to procedural requirements and the absence of conditions mandating the direct use of returned goods as inputs, ultimately leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. Conclusion The judgment delved into the intricacies of Rule 16 regarding Cenvat credit on returned goods, emphasizing the need for proper record-keeping and accounting practices. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal's decisions upheld the appellant's right to claim the credit on duty-paid goods brought back for re-making, in line with established legal interpretations and precedents. The detailed analysis provided a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the application of relevant legal provisions, resulting in the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.
|
