9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, A.R. for the Respondent/ Revenue ORDER The matter pertains to disallowance of cenvat credit to the appellant under Rule 16(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, where the goods namely, batteries were brought back as they were non-usable. 2. The appellant M/s Shivalik Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. represented by ld. Advocate Shri Jaideep Wadge says that under Rule 16(1), the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per Rule 16(2) of CER 2002. The ld. A.R. further states that as the goods are not brought back for being remade, refined or reconditioned, the credit on the returned batteries is not admissible to the appellant. Revenue relies in support on CESTAT, Mumbai's decision in the case of Kalyani Forge Limited vs. C.C.E., Pune III - 2007 (211) ELT 129 (Tri-Mumbai) 4. All the facts of the case an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les, 2002. It is a fact that retrieved material of old batteries underwent certain processes and was cleared as new battery and as waste/scrap on payment of duty of Central Excise. Therefore, following the CESTAT Delhi's decision in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. C.C.E., Delhi III - 2016 (332) ELT 879 (Tri-Del.), the appellant is entitled to Cenvat Credit under Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
