TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 613
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. The learned advocate on behalf of the appellant drew my attention to paragraphs 2&3 of the show-cause notice. He submitted that the show-cause notice was issued on the ground that the goods were returned/rejected by the original customer and the rejected goods were scrapped. The show-cause notice required the appellant to reverse the CENVAT Credit taken on the goods which were rejected and scrapped on the ground that the provisions of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules 2002 were not properly followed and since the goods were scrapped totally the CENVAT credit could not have been availed. However, both the lower authorities have confirmed the demand and imposed penalties on the ground that the appellant did not account for the goods separ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rong with the procedure followed and CENVAT credit has been correctly availed. Learned AR, vehemently argued that the appellant has failed to fulfill the requirement of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules. He submitted that according to Rule 16, assessee is required to maintain records and this means that separate record should be maintained and entry could not have been made in RG-1 register. He also submits that the nature of process undertaken has not been indicated at all. If the rejected goods were received and had some defect or were reprocessed, the same could not have been entered straightaway in the RG-1 register without undertaking any process whatsoever. Therefore, he submits that the conditions of Rule 16 have not been fulfilled and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... returned not only for remaking, refining, reprocessing or reconditioning, but for any other reasons. The words for any other reason gives a very vide meaning and therefore, the goods can be brought for any purpose. Under these circumstances I do not find any justification in the stand taken by the lower authorities that the assessee could not have accounted the goods in the RG-1 and in the absence of such accounting, duty should be paid on these as such. I have to take note of the fact that duty cannot be demanded for the second time on the same goods without showing that they have not suffered duty. In this case there is no denial by both the lower authorities that there is no finding that the rejected goods when they were cleared did n....