TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing any interference in the same - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/3472/2012-EX(DB) - 70965/2018 - Dated:- 22-5-2018 - Shri Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member And Shri Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Superintendent) AR For the Respondent : Request for Adjournment ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa Being aggrieved with the Order of Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. The respondent prayed for adjournment. However we find that a short issue is involved. Accordingly, after rejecting the request for adjournment, we proceed to decide the appeal itself, after hearing the ld. A.R. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide their letter dated 13.01.11 informed that the said returned cigarettes would be sent to ripping for retrieving the tobacco filled inside and retrieved tobacco as collected would be sent to the production floor and used to manufacture fresh cigarette. 4. On examination of documents submitted by them with regard to the returned cigarettes, claimed to be received under the provisions of Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for remaking, and the process details intimated by the appellant-company for remaking vide their letter dated 13.01.2011, it had been observed by the jurisdictional Range Officer that the tobacco so retrieved was not necessarily sent to the production floor and used in the manufacture of fresh cigarettes as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purpose of availing the Cenvat credit on returned goods in the guise of Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 as the value of such tobacco was very less as compared to the amount of credit available to the appellant-company on the returned cigarettes. 5. In view of the forgoing, proceeding were initiated against the respondent, for denial of Cenvat credit of ₹ 34,72,134/-, by way of issuance of a Show Cause Notice dated 6.9.2012. The said Show Cause Notice was adjudicating, confirming the demand along with interest and imposing penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Act. Further penalty of ₹ 10,000/- was imposed in terms of Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On appeal Commissioner (Appeals) set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Cenvat credit on the duty paid return goods is that the assessee is required to account for such receipt in his records. A perusal of the facts of the case clearly reveal that the appellant-company has duty intimated the receipt of the impugned goods i.e. 343 CFC of Sunflake GOLD Ft. 69 mm Cigarettes to the department vide their letter dated 23.09.10, maintained the record of such returned goods and retrieved tobacco after ripping of the returned cigarettes. I further find that the provisions of Rule 16(1) ibid allows the Cenvat credit on such returned finished excisable goods by treating the same as if the same have been received as inputs. The Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. CCE, Noida, 2010(261)ELT272(Tri. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I) Ltd., as reported in 2006(206)ELT941(Tri.-Mum), has allowed the Cenvat Credit in respect of the goods which after return in the factory were dismantled and their components were used for the manufacture of other machines. Earlier Modvat credit was denied by the lower authority under Rule 16 on the ground that the goods have not been brought back for being remade, refined and reconditioned. 8. As can be seen from the above observations of Commissioner (Appeals), he has relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal, which are in favour of the assessee. Revenue has not advanced any justifiable reason to show as to how the ratio of the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Otherwise also, we find that Rule 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
