TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Held that: - As the said stock is liable for duty but only at the time of removal thereon, before that CENVAT credit cannot be questioned - Even as per Rule 16 also after taking cenvat credit on the duty paid returned goods, the subsequent payment of duty is made only at the time of removal of such returned goods and not during the time it is lying in the factory - demand set aside - appeal all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 2,42,543/- and balance amount was ₹ 1,08,273/- was disallowed on the ground that the credit availed on this goods is lying in the factory. Being aggrieved by the order-in-appeal, the appellant is before me. 2. Shri P.V. Sadavarte, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that returned corrugated boxes was duty paid corrugated boxes returned to the factory of the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... principle agreed that the cenvat credit is admissible in para 9 of the impugned order which is reproduced below: On the other hand I find that the appellant has maintained detailed account of duty paid goods received in the factory for being remade, refined or reconditioned and also maintained invoices and purchase documents like delivery memos, rejection memos etc. and have also given cross ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such returned goods and not during the time it is lying in the factory, therefore the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) for denying the credit of ₹ 1,08,273/- is not correct. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified. Demand of cenvat credit of ₹ 1,08,273/-, corresponding interest and penalty is set aside. The appeal is allowed. (Pronounced Dictated in court) - - Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
