TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record. As the benefit has been availed by the assessee, thus burden was upon them to discharge the same. Revenue s allegation that no entries relating to return of goods in ER-1 return have indicated that damaged goods have really come back strengthen the case of Revenue as above conclusion is based on documentary evidence. I also agree with Revenue that Commissioner (Appeals) s observation that goods have passed the test of manufacture once they are returned under Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 has no force. There is considerable strength in departmental contention for invocation of larger period. Though respondents have cleared that receipt and clearance was shown in return. Actually there is no clear description in return indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04 received back from their depots located at Ludhiana and Delhi. The cotton yarn was subsequently exempted from payment of duty vide Not.No.30/2004-CE dated 09.7.2004. The party removed these goods i.e. cotton yarn without payment of duty in terms of exemption granted vide the notification ibid. 3. In the instant case the party received as well as removed cotton yarn. No process amounting to manufacture had been carried out on the goods. Department took the view that the assessee was required to pay an amount of ₹ 4,40,006/- equal to Central Excise credit taken on goods as per provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, before removing the goods from the factory. The assessee had suppressed the material fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E, Chandigarh vs. United Vanapati Ltd.-2010 (251) ELT 373 (HP). 8. Heard both sides and also perused record. 9. Only issue for consideration is whether process of re-conditioning and repacking of yarn amounted to manufacture or not. As indicated above, process of reconditioning and repacking do not fall under the definition of manufacture wherein processes amounting to manufacture have been specified. It is undisputed fact that the respondents are manufacturers of yarn and they have been clearing yarn on payment of duty. Respondent received back some quantity of yarn for repacking and reconditioning, etc. and availed credit under Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 10. From the perusal of nature of process undertaken, it is obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
