2017 (8) TMI 305 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Denial of Cenvat Credit: Lack of Evidence & Rule 16 Compliance

Gold Seal Engg Products Pvt Ltd. Versus C.C.E & S.T. – Daman

The Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, dismissing the appeals as devoid of merit. The appellant's claim for Cenvat credit for rejected rubber parts was ... CENVAT credit - rejected goods - demand of recovery on the ground that the appellant had neither maintained the records of receipt and disposal of the rejected goods and also could not able to establish that the nature of process undertaken on the rejected goods resulted manufacture - Held that: - the appellant could not place any documentary evidence in support of their claim that the rejected rubber parts were received and reprocessed resulting into manufacture and later cleared on payment of duty - the appellant are not eligible to the CENVAT credit - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:Claim of Cenvat credit for rejected rubber parts under Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.Analysis:The case involved the appellant, engaged in manufacturing rubber products for the automobile industry, claiming Cenvat credit for rejected rubber parts received during July 2001 to January 2005. The appellant alleged that the rejected goods were reprocessed, resulting in manufacture and clearance on payment of duty. However, show cause notices were issued for recovery of wrongly availed credit, as the appellant failed to maintain records of receipt and disposal of the rejected goods and could not establish the reprocessing resulted in manufacture. The demand was confirmed with interest and penalty, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.The Revenue argued that the appellant had not maintained records of the rejected goods' receipt and disposal, nor provided substantial evidence that the reprocessing led to manufacture and clearance on duty payment. The authorities below had observed the appellant's failure to meet these requirements, and the Revenue submitted literature supporting the impossibility of reprocessing defective rubber parts to manufacture new ones.Upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellant could not produce documentary evidence supporting their claim of reprocessing rejected rubber parts to manufacture new ones cleared on duty payment. Despite the appellant's claim of receiving and reprocessing the rejected parts, no documentation was provided to demonstrate compliance with Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, dismissing the appeals as devoid of merit.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled against the appellant, denying their eligibility for Cenvat credit due to the lack of evidence supporting the reprocessing of rejected rubber parts into new parts cleared on payment of duty. The decision was based on the appellant's failure to provide documentary proof required by Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.