9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Uni Deritend Ltd. against denial of Cenvat Credit availed under Rule 16 of the Central excise Rules. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that they have three factories located at Thane, Nashik and Nagpur and the office located in Thane. Certain goods which were cleared by various factories were brought back for being remaking, reconditioning, etc. at their unit in Nagpur. However, the docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y factory can be brought back to the factory for the purpose stated in Rule 16. In respect of second ground regarding the documents being in the name of Thane office, Ld. Counsel argued that the receipt of goods is not disputed as can be seen from the observations of lower authorities. He further produced copy of Form 5 and the documents containing endorsement on the back side, which shows the ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation squarely covers that aspect. CBEC in its Circular dated 13/12/2001 (supra) has observed as follows: "The Board has examined the matter. The said Rule 16 2. provides for return of duty paid goods to the factory for being re-made, refined, reconditioned or for any other reason. It was in the context of the word 'return' that the Central Excise Manual issued on 1-9-2001 states that goods shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of goods at Nagpur factory has not been challenged by the Revenue. In these circumstances, the objection regarding endorsement of documents and address of Thane office in the documents becomes a procedural lapse. Substantive benefit cannot be denied for procedural reasons. In these circumstances, this ground for rejection of Cenvat Credit claim cannot be sustained. The appeal is consequently all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
