9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake credit on the duty paid return goods, appellant has neither availed credit nor paid duty on removal of re-processed goods, which is against the Law - Technical reasons for denying substantive benefit is not called for – matter remanded - E/450/2006-SM(BR) - 491/2008-SM (BR)(PB), - Dated:- 18-12-2007 - Shri P.K. Das, Member (J) Shri Atul Gupta, C.S., for the Appellant. Shri A.K. Ras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the procedure under Rule 16(1) and 16(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The adjudicating authority confirmed demand of duty and imposed penalty of equal amount along with interest which has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that they are entitled to take credit on the duty paid return goods under Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules. It has been observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant has neither availed Cenvat credit at the time of receipt duty paid return goods as inputs nor paid the central excise duty at the time of removal of the said re-processed goods, which is against the Central Excise law and amounts to removal of goods without payment of duty. The adjudicating authority observed that the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a statute should be interpreted so as to promote the object and the purpose of the scheme. Technical reasons for denying substantive benefit is not called for. In the present case, there is no dispute that the appellants received the duty paid return goods at their factory on which they were entitled to take Cenvat credit in terms of Rule16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. It is also noted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
