2014 (7) TMI 695

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 34,61.989/- was unreasonable as the credit was correctly taken in view of the procedure under Rule 16(1) and 16 (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and that Rule 16 (3) is not applicable to the appellant's case. It was his case that the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not applicable to this case as the provisions of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 are independent of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and even if the returned goods are cleared as such, after processes not amounting to manufacture, then also the same can be done by reversing equivalent credit at the time of removal of goods as such. 3. Shri K. Shivakumar (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued and defended the orders passed by the adjudicating authority and the fir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nbsp;        [Explanation - The amount paid under this sub-rule shall be allowed as CENVAT credit as if it was a duty paid by the manufacturer who removes the goods.]         (3) If there is any difficulty in following the provisions of sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2), the assessee may receive the goods for being re-made, refined, reconditioned or for any other reason and may remove the goods subsequently subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Commissioner." 4.1 As per the above provisions finished duty paid goods have been deemed to be inputs for the purpose of taking credit as per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. A combined reading of Rule 16 (1) and 16(2)....