TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it s customers and when the same are returned for any reason, the Appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit of the same subject to conditions of Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. From the plain reading of the above Rule 16, it can be seen that though under Cenvat credit Rules, Cenvat credit is allowed only on input but under special provision of Rule 16, the Cenvat credit is allowed even on the finished goods on the condition that at the time of re-issue of such finished goods, the assessee is required to pay appropriate excise duty. In the present case, there is no dispute on payment of duty on the re-issue of the goods on which credit was taken. Therefore, in terms of Rule 16, the Appellant is entitled for the credit. Te issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER The appellant assessee is in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 05/03/2019 for confirmation of demand of ₹ 3,66,578/- as irregular Cenvat credit availed under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 during the period 2013-14 and 2014-15 along with applicable interest and equal amount of penalty. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant, M/s.Anmol Stainless Private Limited, is engaged in the business of manufacture of cold rolling of thick stainless sheets, slitting in small sizes, making stainless pipes etc. classifiable under Chapter No. 73049000 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. Based on an EA 2000 audit of the excise and service tax records of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise Rules, 2002, if duty paid goods are returned for remake and are again cleared after payment of excise duty, then the Appellant is eligible to avail Cenvat credit of the said returned goods on its own invoice also. The Appellant further stated that though in an earlier proceeding for the same period wherein vide SCN dated 01/04/2015, the department had demanded reversal of entire Cenvat credit availed by the Appellant on the imported China pipes on the ground that the process undertaken by the Appellant on such pipes does not amount to manufacture under Central excise and thus the Appellant had reversed the total Cenvat credit availed on such China pipes by way of payment of excise duty and balance by way of reversal from the cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the other hand, justified the impugned orders. 8. Heard both sides through video conferencing and perused the appeal records. 9. The short issue that arise for consideration in the instant appeal is with respect to whether the Appellant is liable to reverse the amount of Cenvat credit on the duty paid goods retuned by its customers on the cover of its own invoice or not. I find that the Appellant has produced copies of its tax invoice, credit note as well as buyer s debit note for return of the said duty paid goods by its customers (page 111-112 of the appeal paper book). From the same it is clear that the Appellant had sold goods after payment of excise duty to it s customers and when the same are returned for any reason, the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such conditions as may be specified by the Commissioner. 10. From the plain reading of the above Rule 16, it can be seen that though under Cenvat credit Rules, Cenvat credit is allowed only on input but under special provision of Rule 16, the Cenvat credit is allowed even on the finished goods on the condition that at the time of re-issue of such finished goods, the assessee is required to pay appropriate excise duty. In the present case, there is no dispute on payment of duty on the re-issue of the goods on which credit was taken. Therefore, in terms of Rule 16, the Appellant is entitled for the credit. Further, the issue is no more res integra. The Tribunal in the case of BALMER LAWRIE CO. LTD supra has held - From the plain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can avail the Cenvat credit of the duty paid goods and since there is no dispute in the present case that the goods were not duty paid goods. The demand for recovery of Cenvat credit fails. Further, it is also on record that the Appellant s activities were known to the department since inception as earlier also a SCN dated 01/04/2015 was served on the Appellants for recovery of Cenvat credit availed on imported china pipes which were cleared after payment of duty. Thus, the current proceedings being on the same foot by treating amount paid by the Appellant as not excise duty, cannot be sustained by invoking extended period of limitation as the department was very much having knowledge of the entire proceedings since inception. Thus, the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
