9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure of CPTs or their identity are to be established based on the documents. Here, when the defective CPTs are returned by the service centres of the TV manufacturers the invoices under which the picture tubes were cleared by the original manufacturer were indicated. In any case, the picture tubes which were received for reconditioning are to be eventually cleared and accounted for in terms of the aforesaid rules. There is no double benefit as the credit availed by the manufacturer of TV is forming part of duty paid on the whole TV. As such the picture tube credit availed by the manufacture of TV is duly accounted for. When the defective picture tubes are received back by the appellant, they are entitled for the credit as the challan unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of ₹ 67,61,844/-. The proposal in the show cause notices are on the ground that there is no co-relation between the CPTs cleared by the appellants and received from the service centre in the absence of duty paying documents and identification on CPT; twice cenvat credit has been taken on the same goods, once by the manufacture of TV and second time by the appellant on receipt of defective CPTs; the defective CPTs received from service centres are not accompanied by any duty paying documents and credit taken on photocopies of own invoice is not legally tenable. The original authority adjudicated the case vide order dated 25.02.2008. The present appeal is directed against this order. 2. We have heard both the sides and perused t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availed by the appellant on the basis of their triplicate copies of invoice is correct. 4. Regarding denial of credit on CPTs initially cleared to OEM manufacturers of TV and returned from service centres, the appellants stated that these duty paid CPTs were returned with reference to the invoice numbers which are mentioned in the challan of the service centres. The service centres are manufacturer s own facility and they have no separate identity. We note that Board s Circular dated 21.06.2001 clarified the scope of Rule 16. It was mentioned that if the amount of duty that was paid when the goods were originally removed from the clearance is known from the relevant documents, the manufacturer can take the cenvat credit equal to the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the 5th of next month. Further, Board vide Circular dated 13.12.2001 clarified that return need not be interpreted strictly. Receipt of duty paid goods in the factory of manufacturer for the purpose specified in the said Rule may be allowed in respect of goods not manufactured by them. 5. In the present appeal as far as return of goods from the traders/ service centres where the appellant submitted that the buyers have not taken cenvat credit of Central Excise duty. The assessee s own document of duty payment can be considered as a valid document for taking credit. In any case, the goods received for reconditioning etc. are to be duly accounted for by the appellant and should be cleared/ disposed of in terms of the Central Excise R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
