https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776610 The HC held that the appellant was not entitled to avail CENVAT credit on duties paid for defective goods returned by customers and subsequently sold as scrap. The court found no manufacturing activity occurred during the disposal of returned goods as scrap under Chapter 7204, and processes like rectification did not amount to manufacture. Consequently, Rule 16(2) mandated repayment of credit taken, as the goods could not be treated as inputs under the CENVAT Credit Rules. Reliance on precedent concerning manufacturing was inapplicable since no production took place. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Revenue's position that CENVAT credit cannot be claimed on returned defective goods sold as scrap without a manufacturing process. en-us Wed, 30 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Aug 2025 08:26:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776610 The HC held that the appellant was not entitled to avail CENVAT credit on duties paid for defective goods returned by customers and subsequently sold as scrap. The court found no manufacturing activity occurred during the disposal of returned goods as scrap under Chapter 7204, and processes like rectification did not amount to manufacture. Consequently, Rule 16(2) mandated repayment of credit taken, as the goods could not be treated as inputs under the CENVAT Credit Rules. Reliance on precedent concerning manufacturing was inapplicable since no production took place. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Revenue's position that CENVAT credit cannot be claimed on returned defective goods sold as scrap without a manufacturing process. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776610