9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee after receipt of the returned goods, so as to show the further process taken by them and on the other hand, they are contending that 80% of the receipt material was cleared as scrap. The said submission of the Revenue is based upon the statement of the employee, without verifying as to whether the waste and scrap so cleared by the appellant emerged during the course of remanufacture or the not. The provision of Rule 16 does not require maintenance of any records. The returned goods have to be treated as inputs and the assessee having shown the issuance of the said inputs from their RG-I; had deemed to have manufactured their final product. In the absence of any documentary evidence in support of revenue’s stand, I find no j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound to be reusable in respect of the quantity so cleared by them as scrap. As such, after initiating proceeding against the assessee, the original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of ₹ 19,60,153/- along with imposition of penalty on the ground that in terms of Rule 16(2) of the Central Excise Rules 2002, if the goods are not subjected to any process of manufacture, an assessee shall pay an amount equal to the Cenvat credit taken. 4. On appeal against the above order, Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal by observing as under Para 6:- In view of the above I find that certain processes were undertaken on the returned aluminium foils viz, re-annealing, slitting, edge trimming, Panacking, la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is admitted fact that goods were returned to factory and Cenvat credit on these returned goods was taken/availed as per provisions of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules 2002. Prescribed records were also maintained for this and there no evidence that these goods were removed clandestinely without payment of duty. Therefore, duty demand of ₹ 19,60,153/- for Cenvat credit on returned goods is not sustainable under law and deserves to be set aside. The said order is impugned before the Tribunal. 5. The revenue s contention is that in terms of the statement of Shri Krishan Kumar and the other employee of the assessee company, it stands deposed that only 20% of the returned goods were found usable and the balance 80% were sold as sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
