2014 (7) TMI 188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri K.J. Kinariwalla, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. Commr(A)/102/VDR-II/2007, dated 22-5-2007. The issue involved in this appeal is whether Cenvat credit is admissible with respect to the rejected goods returned to the premises of the appellant as per the provisions of Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Sh. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as 2009 (246) E.L.T. 666 (Tri.-Bang.) in the case of Ultra Tech Cement v. CCE, Tirupati which further relied upon Gujarat High Court's decision in the case of Shyam Textile Mills v. UOI [2005 (67) RLT 488 (Guj.)]. 3. Sh. K.J. Kinariwala (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue strongly argued that OIA dated 22-5-2007 has been correctly passed by the first appellate authority. 4. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ls on earlier occasions and appellant got favourable order from the Bench. The net effect of the earlier orders is that appellant succeeded in getting the orders that Cenvat credit on the rejected returned goods is admissible. It is not a situation where any duty was paid on the finished goods by debiting duty from RG-23 part-II account of the appellant and refund of such duty paid was claimed by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... para 5 following was held :- "Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are not in a position to appreciate as to how the respondents can find fault with the petitioner's availing of the amount lying to their credit in the deemed credit register after having succeeded before the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondents appear to be harbouring a mis-conception that there has to be som....