9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1040X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty. Under the provisions of Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, when duty paid goods are returned to the factory of manufacture, for being repaired, remade, refined, reconditioned, etc., the manufacturer take the cenvat credit of the duty originally paid and thereafter in terms of provisions of sub-rule (2), at the time of clearance of the repaired/remade goods, if the process undertaken does not amount to manufacture, he is required to pay the duty amount equal to the cenvat credit taken, but if the process amounts to manufacture, he is required to pay the duty chargeable on the goods at the rate applicable on the date of removal and on the value determined under the provisions of Section 3(2), Section 4 or Section 4 A, as the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the duty earlier paid on them. According to the appellant, these tubes are dismantled, the usable parts are salvaged and thereafter using fresh parts, CPTs are made, which are cleared on payment of duty. There is no dispute that the appellant re-manufactured/re-made the tubes which are cleared on payment of appropriate duty. The department was of the view that since in the re-making of the CPTs some Cenvat credit availed parts/inputs are used and since re-making does not amount to manufacture, they would not be entitled to cenvat credit in respect of the fresh parts used for re-making of the CPTs. On this basis, a show cause notice dated 7.01.2009 was issued to the appellant seeking recovery of allegedly wrongly taken Cenvat credit amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand is, therefore, time barred, that making of CPTs by using the salvaged parts and new parts would amount to manufacture, and in this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs. Tudor (I) Ltd. reported in 2006 (197) ELT 53 (Tribunal-Mumbai) and also the Tribunal s judgement in the case of Maruti Udyog Vs. CCE, New Delhi-III reported in 2002 (146) ELT 427 (Tribunal-Delhi), that in both the judgements, it has been held when the defective/damaged goods cleared on payment of duty, are received back in the assessee s factory and the same are re-made after dismantling them and using the salvaged parts, the process would amount to manufacture, and thus, on merits, the cenvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of duty, had been received back in the factory for being re-made in the terms of the provisions of Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. From the records, it is clear that the defective CPTs received back had been dismantled and thereafter by using salvaged parts and fresh parts, the entire process of manufacturing is undertaken on the same production line. The fresh CPTs made had been cleared on payment of duty. Under the provisions of Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, when duty paid goods are returned to the factory of manufacture, for being repaired, remade, refined, reconditioned, etc., the manufacturer take the cenvat credit of the duty originally paid and thereafter in terms of provisions of sub-rule (2), at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
