TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (1) TMI 6
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn of the goods was under cover of invoices No. 216 dated 4-3-2003 and No. 228 dated 10-3-2003 issued by the appellant at the time of original clearance of the goods. The denial of credit to the appellant is on the ground that the goods were not received by them under cover of any valid cenvatable document. This ground is being challenged now. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the benefit of CENVAT credit is not deniable inasmuch as the substantive requirements were, undisputedly, fulfilled. The goods were duty-paid and were reprocessed into fresh defect-free final product in the appellants' factory. Ld. Counsel points out that the relevant Rule (Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002) did not prohibit triplicate copy of invoices ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned to accept the arguments of ld. Counsel. Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 laid down that, where any final product cleared by a manufacturer on payment of duty was returned by the buyer for being remade, refined, reconditioned etc., the former would be entitled to take CENVAT credit of such duty as if such goods were received as 'inputs' under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. Admittedly, in the present case, the final products cleared by the appellant on payment of duty under the aforesaid invoices dated 4-3-2003 and 10-3-2003 were returned by the buyer and such duty was taken as CENVAT credit by appellant treating the goods as inputs. The only objection of the Department is that such credit was taken on the basis of allegedly i....