2018 (8) TMI 535 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - duty paid return goods - denial of credit on the ground that the customers of the appellant while returning the goods have not shown the purpose for which it is returned - Held that - Rules 16 does not prescribe the condition that the supplier of the return goods should mention the purpose. Even if no activity is carried out, the transaction is squarely covered by Rule 16. Therefore, the purpose is not significant for availing the CENVAT credit in Rule 16. The appellant have not violated or contravented any such provision as regard Rule 16 - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Availing CENVAT credit for duty paid return goods under Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
- Denial of credit due to customers not specifying the purpose for returning goods.
- Failure to mention the transaction in ER-I return.
- Dispute over the verification of correlation chart and LR details.

Analysis:
The appellant availed CENVAT credit for duty paid return goods under Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The issue arose when the customers returning goods did not specify the purpose for return, leading to a show cause notice. The appellant submitted a correlation chart showing the flow of goods, but the demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Ld. Commissioner. The main argument for denial of credit was the lack of specified purpose for return by customers. The appellant contended that Rule 16 does not mandate such specification by customers. Additionally, the failure to mention the transaction in the ER-I return was cited as a reason for denying credit.

The Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that the denial of credit based on the lack of specified purpose was unfounded. The appellant had verified the correlation chart, which the adjudicating authority accepted. The LR details showed a discrepancy in the origin and destination of goods, but it was argued that the proximity of locations rendered this insignificant. The non-inclusion of the transaction in the ER-I return was acknowledged as a technical lapse, but it was emphasized that the duty had been paid on returned goods and reissued after payment, justifying the CENVAT credit.

On the other hand, the Ld. Supdt. (A.R.) for the Revenue supported the lower authorities' decision to deny CENVAT credit. The argument centered around the absence of the transaction in the ER-I return, making it difficult to confirm the discharge of Excise duty on reissued goods. It was asserted that this omission was not merely a technical error, warranting the denial of credit.

After considering the submissions and records, it was noted that the appellant had provided a correlation chart post the show cause notice. Despite discrepancies in LR details, the receipt of goods was accounted for in the appellant's records. The verification of the correlation chart by the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (A) supported the appellant's claim for CENVAT credit. Rule 16 was analyzed, clarifying that the purpose of return specified by the supplier was not a prerequisite for availing credit. The responsibility lay with the recipient to decide the subsequent activities on returned goods. As long as the goods were recorded in the CENVAT account, credit could be availed. The judgment favored the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.