Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Tirupati Structurals Limited, ... vs Cce, Ghaziabad on 19 May, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066
BENCH-SM
COURT IV
Excise Appeal No.E/2760/2012/EX [SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.123-CE/GZB/2012 dated 28.06.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1. Whether Press reporters may be allowed to see the
order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT
(Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in
any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
authorities?
__________________________________________________
M/s.Tirupati Structurals Limited, Ghaziabad Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Ghaziabad Respondent
Present for the Appellant : None
Present for the Respondent: Shri M.R.Sharma, DR
Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 19.05.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 51764/2015
PER: S.K. MOHANTY
When this appeal came up for hearing today, none appeared for appellant and Shri M.R. Sharma, learned AR appeared the respondent-Revenue. During the course of hearing of appeal on 16.12.2014, the appellant has filed a written submission and prayed for deciding the appeal on the basis of submissions made therein.
2. According to the appellant, Central Excise Duty attributable to the finished goods has been paid on removal of the same from the factory. However, in some cases, due to defects in the finished goods, the buyers have returned back the goods to appellant for the purpose enumerated in Rule 16 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Upon receipt of the defective goods in the factory, the appellant entered the receipt particulars in the RG-I register, on the basis of the original invoices on which the goods were initially removed from the factory. Thus, according to the appellant, since adequate records have been maintained, showing removal of goods from the factory on payment of duty and receipt of defective goods from the buyers, which after carrying out the processes indicated in Rule 16 (1) of Central Excise Rules 2002, have been removed from the factory, they are entitled for cenvat credit of central excise duty paid on the finished goods removed from the factory on earlier occasions. Hence, denial of Cenvat credit by the authorities below is not in confirmity with the statutory provisions.
3. Per-contra, the submissions of the Revenue-respondent are that no goods were received back by the appellant, instead ash and broken pieces packed in bags were received by them which cannot be equated with the manufactured goods by the appellant and that since, the goods received cannot be identifiable with the initially removed goods, Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 will have no application, and thus, no credit of duty was admissible to the appellant on receipt of such waste material packed in bags.
4. Heard ld. AR for Revenue and perused the records. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant had paid the duty on the final product at the time of clearance from the factory, which was returned back as defective for accomplishing the purpose indicated in Rule 16 (1) of the Central Excise, Rules, 2002. Further, I find that upon receipt of the goods, the same have been duly reflected/ entered in the Daily Stock Account i.e. RG-1 Register maintained by the appellant. The entries have been made in the said register on the basis of the original invoices, in the cover of which the goods were initially removed from the factory. Hence, it is erroneous to assume that the goods were not identifiable and relatable to the duty paid documents and also it is not proper to conclude that no records have been maintained for return of defective goods. It is not in dispute that the Daily Stock Account has not been maintained properly by the appellant.
5. Therefore, I am of the considered view that cenvat credit taken by the appellant on such duty paid defective goods received in the factory for carrying out the processes under Rule 16(1) of the rules are eligible for cenvat credit and accordingly, the impugned order confirming the Cenvat demand is set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Anita ??
??
??
??
0 4