Tribunal allows appeal for Cenvat Credit on unusable batteries under Rule 16(1)

The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing their appeal regarding the disallowance of cenvat credit under Rule 16(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 for unusable batteries. The tribunal determined that the appellant's transaction fell under Rule 16(1) and not Rule 16(2), as the material from the old batteries was used to manufacture new batteries. Citing precedent and arguments presented, the tribunal granted the appellant the right to claim Cenvat Credit, resulting in the appeal being allowed with consequential benefits awarded to the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Disallowance of cenvat credit under Rule 16(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 for unusable batteries.

The judgment revolves around the disallowance of cenvat credit to the appellant under Rule 16(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, concerning the return of non-usable batteries. The appellant, represented by an advocate, argued that under Rule 16(1), goods can be brought back for various purposes, and they are entitled to claim cenvat credit on these goods as inputs. The appellant relied on a previous case, Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Delhi II - 2016(332) ELT 879 (Tri-Delhi), to support their claim.

On the other hand, the Revenue, represented by an authorized representative, contended that cenvat credit is admissible for old unusable batteries only if they are remade, refined, or reconditioned without amounting to manufacture. The Revenue cited a decision from CESTAT, Mumbai, in the case of Kalyani Forge Limited vs. C.C.E., Pune III - 2007 (211) ELT 129 (Tri-Mumbai) to support their argument that the credit on returned batteries is not admissible if they are not brought back for the specified purposes.

After considering all the facts, submissions, and relevant case laws, the tribunal found in favor of the appellant. The tribunal concluded that the appellant's transaction falls under Rule 16(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and is not covered by Rule 16(2). The tribunal noted that the retrieved material from the old batteries was used to manufacture new batteries, and the remaining material was sold as waste and scrap after paying central excise duty. Relying on the decision in Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. C.C.E., Delhi III - 2016 (332) ELT 879 (Tri-Del.), the tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to claim Cenvat Credit under Rule 16(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, granting the appellant consequential benefits.

---