TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant unit and marked with ISI mark and dispatched to the buyer. The contention of Revenue is that the goods being cement/finished product, the credit is not admissible. Rule 16 does not require remanufacturing of goods or that goods should undergo any process after being brought to the factory and before being removed. The goods if brought for being re-made, refined, reconditioned or for any other reason , the rule would apply. Thus, do not find that there is contravention of any of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004. The activity falls within the ambit of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. On such score, the demand of interest and imposition of penalty is unsustainable - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/27874/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -. 3. The appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The main contention raised by appellants was that as per Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, a manufacturer can receive duty paid goods into the factory for being remade, refined, reconditioned or for any other reason and after stating the particulars of such receipt, the manufacturer is entitled to take Cenvat credit of duty paid as if such goods are received as input under the Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has partly accepted this contention. The observation is as under. Thus as per the provisions of the above Rule, duly paid goods can be brought into any factory for being re-conditioned, remade, refined or for an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority was reduced to ₹ 2,00,000/-. The appellants are thus before the tribunal. 5. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel Shri V.J.Shankaram submitted that there was no procedural infraction committed by the appellant. That appellant is well within the statutory Rule 16 to receive duty paid goods for any other reason and dispatch them to customers and in this process, the appellant is entitled to take and utilize the credit of duty paid. That the activity clearly falls under Rule 16 of Central Excise Rule, 2002 and has been mis-interpreted by the department has procedural infraction. That the appellant is neither liable to pay interest nor penalty. He relied upon the judgments laid in the following cases: 1. S.Kumar s N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturer shall pay duty on goods received under sub-rule (1) at the rate applicable on the date of removal and on the value determined under sub-section (2) of section 3 or section 4 or section 4A of the Act, as the case may be. [Explanation. - The amount paid under this sub-rule shall be allowed as CENVAT credit as if it was a duty paid by the manufacturer who removes the goods.] 8. The above provision makes it clear that manufacturer can take credit of duty paid on the goods by treating them as inputs. It is seen from the above rule that if goods are brought for any other reason also, the manufacturer is entitled to take credit as if the goods are inputs. The learned counsel for appellant submitted that the appellant unit h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
