TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 768
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vocate, for the Appellant. Shri V.P. Batra, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein credit has been denied on the returned goods. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of electric motors and PD pumps. During the course of audit it was observed that during the periods 2006-2007 and 2008-2009 the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said order appellants are before me. 3. The ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant has received rejected goods which were not reusable. Therefore, they dismantled these goods and the parts of these goods were used in manufacturing of new goods. Therefore, they have correctly taken the Cenvat credit. To support this contention he relied on the decision i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ghtly invoked. He further submitted that the decisions in the case of International Tobacco relied upon by the Ld. Counsel is only a stay order and same cannot be held. Therefore, appellants are required to reverse the Cenvat credit. 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 6. The short issue before me to decide is that whether the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat cred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tilise this credit according to the said rules. (2) If the process to which the goods are subjected before being removed does not amount to manufacture, the manufacturer shall pay an amount equal to the Cenvat credit taken under sub-rule (1) and in any other case the manufacturer shall pay duty on goods received under sub-rule (1) at the rate applicable on the date of removal and on ....