2016 (11) TMI 97

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,  A.R. for the  Respondent/ Revenue ORDER The matter pertains to disallowance of cenvat credit to the appellant under Rule 16(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, where the goods  namely, batteries  were brought back as  they were non-usable. 2. The appellant M/s Shivalik Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. represented by ld. Advocate Shri Jaideep Wadge says that under Rule 16(1), the goods....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s per Rule 16(2) of CER 2002. The ld. A.R. further states that as the goods are not brought back for being remade, refined or reconditioned, the credit on the returned batteries is not admissible to the appellant. Revenue relies in support on CESTAT, Mumbai's decision in the case of Kalyani Forge Limited vs. C.C.E., Pune III - 2007 (211) ELT 129 (Tri-Mumbai) 4.  All the facts of the case and....