9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the goods on payment of duty. In certain cases, the goods are rejected by the buyer and returned to the appellant. The appellant at the time of returned goods, availed cenvat credit of duty paid on such goods. Thereafter, the appellant undertook to rectify/re-make the goods for sale, in that process, certain goods were re-made and cleared on payment of duty. In such goods, where the goods could not be repaired, they were sold as scrap to their sister unit on payment of duty. The case of the revenue is that in the cases, the goods were cleared as scrap, the appellant is required to pay cenvat credit availed on such goods at the time of clearance as they have removed the goods as such in terms of Rule 16(2) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand, the Ld. AR supported the impugned order and submits that the appellant has not done any process on the goods which has been cleared as scrap, therefore, in terms of Rule 16(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 they have required to reverse cenvat credit. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Belapur, 2007 (215) ELT 547 (Tri. Mumbai), Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vs. RFH. Metal Castings (P) Ltd. - 2005 (184) ELT 194 (Tri.-Delhi), Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, L.T.U. Bangalore - 2008 (225) ELT 285 (Tri.Bang.) which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2016 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llegations, it is clear that the rejected goods were received by the appellant and at the time of receiving the rejected goods, the appellant took the cenvat credit in terms of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. It is also fact on record that these goods were subject to re-make and during the process of re-make certain goods were found cannot be re-made and the same were cleared as scrap on payment of duty, therefore, the provision of Rule 16(2) are not applicable to the facts of this case to allege that the goods were cleared as such. In fact, as per the facts of the case itself, it is clear that the returned goods were subjected to some process and when they were not found up to the mark were cleared on payment of duty as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
