2018 (4) TMI 148

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ying duty on clearances effected by the recycling rejected goods and if the appellants are asked to pay the duty on the rejected goods once again, then it amounts to double duty. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Ramesh Ananthan, Advocate, For the Appellant Shri Pakshirajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR), For the Respondent Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 05/07/2017 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has partly allowed the appeal. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods under chapter 39 & 63 of CETA, 1985. During audit of the records o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e further submitted that both the authorities have failed to note that the goods that were rejected had to be recycled in the manufacturing process and as such the rejected goods have to be different from the goods cleared thereafter and therefore it is proved that the rejected goods were reused and recycled and this aspect has not been considered. He further submitted that being a manufacturer, the appellant has been paying the Central Excise duty on the clearances effected by recycling the rejected goods. The duty demanded amounts double duty since the differential duty has already been discharged and there is no contravention of the CCR and this fact is evident from the show-cause notice itself. He further submitted that the Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e appellant being a manufacturer is paying duty on clearances effected by the recycling rejected goods and if the appellants are asked to pay the duty on the rejected goods once again, then it amounts to double duty. Further I find that in the case of Deepak Extrusion (supra), the Tribunal has held as under: - Demand - Cenvat / Modvat - Cenvat credit of duty paid on goods received back availed and goods accounted for in RG-I register - Demand raised on ground that goods scrapped not entitled avail credit - HELD : No requirement that rejected goods to accounted for separately and cannot be entered in RGI register - No investigation or verification carried out that goods were scrapped Observation by lower authority without any basis - No fin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X