9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or accomplishing the purpose indicated in Rule 16 (1) of the CER, 2002 - it is erroneous to assume that the goods were not identifiable and relatable to the duty paid documents and also it is not proper to conclude that no records have been maintained for return of defective goods. It is not in dispute that the Daily Stock Account has not been maintained properly by the appellant. CENVAT credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise Duty attributable to the finished goods has been paid on removal of the same from the factory. However, in some cases, due to defects in the finished goods, the buyers have returned back the goods to appellant for the purpose enumerated in Rule 16 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Upon receipt of the defective goods in the factory, the appellant entered the receipt particulars in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and broken pieces packed in bags were received by them which cannot be equated with the manufactured goods by the appellant and that since, the goods received cannot be identifiable with the initially removed goods, Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 will have no application, and thus, no credit of duty was admissible to the appellant on receipt of such waste material packed in bags. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been maintained for return of defective goods. It is not in dispute that the Daily Stock Account has not been maintained properly by the appellant. 5. Therefore, I am of the considered view that cenvat credit taken by the appellant on such duty paid defective goods received in the factory for carrying out the processes under Rule 16(1) of the rules are eligible for cenvat credit and accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
