Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1329 - CESTAT CHANDIGARHClearance of defective and rejected goods - In the ER 1 return, appellant were reflecting 98% of their production as prime quality CTD bars and rounds whereas in the commercial sale invoice, the said goods were being cleared as defective - Held that: - I find that entire case of the Revenue is based upon the financial calculation of profit and loss of the manufacturing unit. In fact, Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that circumstantial evidence produced on record leads to inevitable fact that raw material supplier (M/s ASRM) was only selling cenvatable invoices without supply of goods. Inasmuch as no retailer can survive if more than 80% of its final product were held to be defective/rejected/scrap. As regards the present appellant, they have shown receipt and utilization of raw material in their factory and have taken the benefit of Cenvat credit based upon the cenvatable invoices issued by registered dealer. Statements of authorised representative of the appellant as also of the dealer are to the effect that inputs stand supplied to them under the cover of proper cenvatable invoices. Statements of representative of the M/s ASRM is to the effect that during the relevant period lot of their product came out to be defective and rejected and as such, same was sold after discharging the central excise duty leviable thereon. Admittedly, the appellant need the raw material for the production of their final product and if, as per the Revenue, such material has not been received by them from M/s ASRM, they were not in a position to manufacture the final product. Revenue has not shown any alternative source of such procurement of raw material. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|