9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LF Ltd (SEZ Developer) under bond without payment of duty and the same were again returned to the appellant by M/s DLF Ltd (SEZ Developer) under bonded Challan for replacement, and on failure of the appellant to replace in the time permitted M/s DLF Ltd. (SEZ Developer) deposited the Excise duty, and claimed reimbursement from appellant, the same was taken credit of by the appellant, whether the said credit was rightly taken by the appellant. 3. The brief facts are that the appellant manufacturer of Bars and Rods of steel and iron etc. cleared and supplied MS Bars (TMT)/Reinforcement Steel to M/s DLF Ltd (SEZ Developer) under ARE-1 procedure without payment of duty vide seven invoices dated 28-29/09/2008 for a total quantity of 200.730 MT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter removed on payment of duty to a separate set of buyers. The appellant thereafter made an application before the Commissioner on 5th January, 2011, praying that they be allowed to take Cenvat credit of Rs. 10, 57, 084/- paid by them to the SEZ Developer for the defective goods, which were returned to them and could not be replaced. On such application the Revenue issued Show Cause Notice dated 13/09/2013 as it appeared to the Revenue that the goods returned by the SEZ Developer where the final product of the appellant which had been cleared without payment of duty for supply to the SEZ Developer under bond and as such no Excise duty was paid at the time of clearance. The appellant had claimed Cenvat credit under Rule 16 of Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellant urges that they are entitled to take the Cenvat credit. Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 carved out a special provision to cater to a situation where duty paid goods are received back by factory/manufacturer for being remade, refined, reconditioned or any other reason. In the present facts it is undisputed that the appellant have received back the goods from the SEZ Developer on payment of duty for being reconditioned etc. It is further admitted fact that the appellant have entered the goods in the stock register and thereafter removed the same on payment of duty to other buyers. It is further urged that under the provisions of Rule of Cenvat Credit Rules, particularly Rule 3, the goods has been admittedly received on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
