9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acture. They are purchased by the respondents and exported. It is not the case of the respondents that the items impugned should be treated as bought-out items and the value of the same thereof has been included in the assessable value of goods either exported or cleared in the domestic market. From the facts of the case, it appears that the respondents have simply procured the goods, brought to the factory and exported these goods along with their manufactured products. For this reason, the credit is not admissible to the respondents. The respondents could have claimed rebate of excise duties paid on these items instead of availing CENVAT credit on the same, though they are not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the goods export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacture of final products and as such credit is not admissible; when the items in dispute do not fall under the definition of "Rule 2(k)" of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, it was incorrect on the part of the adjudicating authority to allow credit in terms of Rule 16 on the grounds that the said Rule provides for credit of duty on goods brought to the factory for any other reason; the words "for any other reason" should be read along with the words used in conjunction to these words; Rule 16 provides that credit can be taken where any goods are brought to any factory for being remade, refined, re-conditioned or for any other reason; therefore, the words "for any other reason" required to be interpreted belonging to the group of items remade, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able reading of the Rule 2(k) is that the any item to be qualified as an input for the CENVAT Credit Rules should be used in or in relation to the manufacture. It is not the case of the respondent that the items in question are used in the factory for manufacture. They are purchased by the respondents and exported. 5. We are also in agreement with the argument of the learned Authorized Representative that learned Commissioner has not read the provisions of Rule 16 of CENVAT Credit Rules and Para 3.4 of Chapter-5 of CBEC"s Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions. We find that CESTAT in the case of A-one Laminators Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that: 11. As far as Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is concerned, it is in relation to the cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12 (276) E.L.T. 172 (Del.). However, the facts of these two cases are different; in the case of A-one Laminators Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the disputed items were claimed to be used in the process of manufacture of goods which is not the case in the impugned case before us. However, the above order passed by the Tribunal throws light on the applicability of Rule 16(k). We find that Tribunal in the case of Brakes India Ltd. (supra) held that: 7. I have carefully considered the facts of the case records and the submissions by both sides. The Cenvat scheme is intended to obviate the requirement of the assessee having to pay duty on that part of its cost of final product representing the duty paid on inputs. The Cenvat Credit Rule 3 provides for ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
