2011 (6) TMI 434

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ith Central Excise Department as a dealer - Held that:- It is not disputed that the goods have been received under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules. The explanation that the invoices issued by Bath Well is for accounting purposes and for return of originally supplied goods has been overlooked. Further the claim that the appellants have taken credit based on original invoices under which the ret .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed the defective goods for repair and reconditioning under Rule 16 and took credit of duty originally paid by them. It is on record that the goods received back have been taken in RG I and cleared on payment of duty, subsequently after repairing the goods. The credit taken stands disallowed on the ground that the credit has been taken on the basis of invoices issued by Bath Well who is not registe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... goods sold by a registered dealer. It is a case of the manufacturer initially clearing the goods on payment of duty and part of the goods having been received back on the ground that the same were found to be defective and for the purpose of repair or reconditioning. It is not disputed that the goods have been received under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules. The explanation that the invoices is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X