2012 (11) TMI 638

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. R. Jagdav, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  Learned Counsel submits that goods cleared on payment of duty when returned back not being fit for consumption were treated as waste and such wastage not being dutiable were cleared. On such factual background the appellant reversed the Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,02,253/- availed on the goods returned as ab....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al amount to the duty element. The dispute being on aforesaid narrow compass, dispensing pre-deposit appeal is disposed by this common order. Neither the show cause notice nor the order-in-original has brought any cogent evidence that the appellant knowingly manufactured goods not fit for consumption. The clearance of the year 2006 is questioned in 2010. Why such long time has elapsed not been exp....