9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, they cannot remove the goods for export or clear the same under exemption Notification No. 108/1995-C.E. without reversing the credit. HELD THAT:- Rule 16 makes it amply clear that the credit is availed in terms of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. There is no embargo envisaged under Rule 16 for export of the goods or for clearance under the exemption Notification. The view taken by the authorities below is that reversal of the credit availed under Rule 16 is a pre-condition for removal of the said goods and therefore, the appellant has to reverse the credit. It is also alleged that when the goods were not originally meant for export, it cannot be later exported when the goods are brought back to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for export under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Some of the chassis were cleared without payment of duty by availing the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 108/1995-C.E. dated 28.08.1995. 1.3 In respect of the chassis that were cleared in the domestic market, the appellants reversed the credit availed by them at the time of bringing back the chassis for repair, as under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules. In respect of the chassis that were exported as well as cleared under Notification No. 108/1995-C.E., the appellants did not reverse the credit. 2. The Department was of the view that as the chassis were brought into the factory under Rule 16 and the appellants had availed credit of the du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit alleging that the credit has been wrongly availed in terms of Rule 16. In fact, the Ld. Counsel submitted that Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules allows to avail credit in terms of Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. 6.3 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the decision in the appellants own case as reported in 2018 (364) E.L.T. 899 (Tri. Chennai) has analysed the very same issue and held that the appellant need not reverse the credit. 6.4 It is thus prayed that the appeals may be allowed. 7.1 The Ld. Authorized Representative Shri Harendra Singh Pal appeared and argued for the Department. Paragraph 7 of the impugned order was adverted to by the Ld. Authorized Representative to argue that the appellants had brought back the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d thereon. Rule 16 only allows such goods, if found defective, to be brought back into the factory for rectification and later on for clearance on payment of duty or amount equal to credit depending on the process involved. Such goods which were not originally meant for export cannot be later exported without payment of duty which is against the procedure prescribed in Rule 16. Similarly, the said goods also cannot be cleared under Notification no.108/95-CE without payment of duty. Reversal of credit or payment of duty, as the case may be, is a pre-condition for goods brought under Rule 16, which had not been fulfilled by them in respect of their clearances for export or under said notification . 11.2 The view taken by the authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
