TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arassment to the assessee by the departmental officer. Suo moto re-credit - Held that:- The appellant was legally entitled for the Cenvat credit under Rule 16 for which no permission is required, even the suo moto re-credit is also is with reference to Rule 16 and since under Rule 16 on permission was required there was no need for waiting of formal permission from the department - so long the department has no objection on merit on the admissibility of the Cenvat Credit under Rule 16, the appellant has rightly taken the credit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/10689/2018-SM - A/12265/2018 - Dated:- 24-9-2018 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For Appellant: Shri. Nazir K. Shaikh (Advocate) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng on behalf of the appellant submits that in principal there is no dispute that the appellant is entitled for the Cenvat Credit on returned goods, in terms of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore, at first instance, they were not required to reverse any credit but the credit was reversed on the insistence of the audit officers. He submits that, since, the credit otherwise was admissible they have requested the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for allowing the re-credit which was not responded, therefore, the appellant have taken the suo moto credit. He submits in various identical case re-credit was allowed in following judgments:- LARK WIRES INFOTECH LTD. VS. COMMR. OF C.EX. CUS., VDODARA-II- 2008 (231) E.L.T 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receiving Services has been notified. On the reading of the above audit objection it can be seen that though the audit officer has mentioned that the assessee has wrongly taken the Cenvat credit in respect of returned goods but either any reason was assigned nor statutory provision was cited how the credit availed on returned goods was wrong. On the contrary Rules 16 clearly provides for the Cenvat Credit in respect of the returned goods. Therefore, there was serious error on the part of the audit officer for insisting to reverse the credit on the returned goods. The appellant after reversal of the credit, requested the Deputy Commissioner to allow the re-credit of the same as there was no reason for denial of the credit. The Deputy Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
