TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants cannot reprocess the returned goods due to statutory regulations governing pesticides - there can be no allegation of suppression or fraud in availing the credit, on their own returned goods on which they have discharged originally the Central Excise duty. Considering that the full reversal of ineligible credit along with interest has been made by the appellant well before the iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure of pesticides liable to Central Excise duty. During the period February, 2007 to March, 2009 they have received duty paid final products back into their factory. They have taken credit of duty already discharged on such product, in their Cenvat account. Since, the duty paid products brought back by the appellants were time expired products in terms of Pesticides Rule, 1971 and cannot be put to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith interest, on being pointed out by the Department. They are not contesting the said reversal. Since, the full amount of credit, found to be ineligible under the terms of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was paid back, the matter should have been closed in terms of Section 11(2B) of the Act. The credit availed were duly recorded in their RG-23A Register and also reflected in the monthly ER- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it availed by the appellant in terms of Rule 16 is not correct. Admittedly, the appellants cannot reprocess the returned goods due to statutory regulations governing pesticides. Admittedly, further, the Cenvat credit on such goods have been duly entered into in the records of the appellant and formed part of the credit statement in the ER-1 filed by the appellants. In such situation, there can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
