CONDON POWER PRODUCTS P. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-IV
LAWS(CE)-2015-4-11
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on April 01,2015

Condon Power Products P. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi -IV Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

INTERNATIONAL TOBACCO LTD. V. C.C.E. AND S.T. [REFERRED TO]
RAINBOW PLASTIC INDUSTRIES VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT [REFERRED TO]
BCH ELECTRIC LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Ashok Jindal, Member (J)
(2.)THE appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein credit has been denied on the returned goods. The facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of electric motors and PD pumps. During the course of audit it was observed that during the periods 2006 -2007 and 2008 -2009 the appellant availed Cenvat credit on the goods returned as defective/rejection by the buyers. The said goods were scrapped and the parts thereof were used in manufacturing of new product. Revenue is of the view that as per Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 such rejected goods were required to be sent back after repairs/rectification failing which Cenvat credit taken on such rejection was to be reversed. On these basis a show cause notice was issued to the appellant for reversal of Cenvat credit on the rejected goods received by them along with interest and penalty also proposed on the appellant and their employee. The show cause notice was adjudicated. The denial of Cenvat credit was confirmed along with interest and penalty on both the appellants before me are imposed. Aggrieved from the said order appellants are before me.
The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant has received rejected goods which were not reusable. Therefore, they dismantled these goods and the parts of these goods were used in manufacturing of new goods. Therefore, they have correctly taken the Cenvat credit. To support this contention he relied on the decision in the case of International Tobacco Ltd. v. C.C.E. & S.T. - : 2013 (292) E.L.T. 263 (Tri -Del). He further submits that as the reversal of Cenvat credit on returned goods as shown by them in statutory records. Therefore, extended period of limitation is not invokable. In the light of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Rainbow Plastic Industries v. C.C.E. Surat -, 2011 (274) E.L.T. 577 (Tri -Ahmd) and in the case of BCH Electric Ltd. v. C.C.E. Delhi - : 2013 (31) S.T.R. 68 (Tri -Del).

(3.)ON the other hand Ld. AR oppose the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that although the appellant has recorded the return of these damaged goods in the RG 23 register part 1 and part 2 but not recorded the dismantle goods in their stock register. Therefore, the extended period of limitation is rightly invoked. He further submitted that the decisions in the case of International Tobacco relied upon by the Ld. Counsel is only a stay order and same cannot be held. Therefore, appellants are required to reverse the Cenvat credit.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.