TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal orders remand for document collection to reconsider denial of credit on returned goods</h1> <h3>Vishal Ranka, Kalpena Industries Ltd Versus C.C.E. & Cus, Vapi</h3> The Tribunal allowed the Appeals by way of remand for further review, directing both parties to collect crucial documents, likely in the custody of the ... CENVAT credit - returned/rejected finished goods - Rule 16(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that: - the relevant documents/invoices for the relevant period were seized by the authorities and there is no evidence that it were returned to the Appellant. Thus, it is clear that these documents are still with the Department. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, the matters are remanded to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), to decide the said issue of eligibility of credit of ₹ 26,08,48/- availed on returned/rejected goods afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues involved:Appeals against Order-in-Appeal regarding denial of credit on returned/rejected finished goods under Rule 16(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002.Analysis:1. Facts of the Case:The Appellant availed credit of Rs. 34,95,317/- on returned/rejected finished goods during the relevant period under Rule 16(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. A show cause notice was issued for recovery of the credit alleging non-compliance with the conditions of the said Rule. The demand was confirmed with interest and penalty, and the Appellant filed Appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the order.2. Appellant's Submission:The Appellant submitted a statement correlating the quantity of goods returned/rejected goods received on which credit was availed, but the Commissioner (Appeals) did not accept it as the relevant invoices were not produced. The Appellant's advocate argued that the invoices were seized by the Preventive section of the Commissionerate and not returned, emphasizing that those records should have been considered in the decision-making process.3. Revenue's Submission:The Revenue argued that despite the seizure of various documents, including invoices, the Appellant did not make an effort to request their return from the department.4. Judgment and Remand:The Commissioner (Appeals) denied credit of Rs. 26,08,549/- on returned/rejected goods due to lack of appropriate documents and correlation between goods received and cleared. The Tribunal observed that the relevant documents were seized and not returned to the Appellant, indicating that the documents were still with the Department. As a result, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision considering the relevant invoices/evidences. Both the department and the Appellant were directed to collect these documents, which were likely in the custody of the preventive unit of the department. The Tribunal allowed the Appeals by way of remand for further review.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by both parties, the reasons for the denial of credit, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for a fresh determination based on the availability of crucial documents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
