TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 1171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imported sugar, the appellant had received only 98,107.55 quintals of raw sugar and the rest quantity was lost during transit. The appellant reversed the cenvat credit of Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) paid on the quantity of raw sugar lost in transit. The said imported raw sugar were sent for processing to the job workers upon compliance of the requirements of Rule 16A of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with the Circular dated 12.02.2010 issued by the CBEC. After processing of the raw sugar in the job worker's place, 92.379 quintals were received in the factory of the appellant. Since cenvat credit of CVD on 98,107.55 quintals was taken by the appellant and the processed sugar received in the factory was only 92,379 quintals, the Dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the appellant on the quantity of raw sugar received in the factory under the cover of Bill of Entry. He submits that upon compliance of the procedure laid down by the CBEC circular dated 12.02.2010, the raw sugar were sent to the factory of the job worker for getting the white marketable sugar. According to him, since the cenvat credit has been taken on the basis of the quantity of raw sugar received in the factory, the same cannot be denied to the appellant in absence of any specific stipulation/ prohibition contained in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He further submits that the loss occurred during the course of processing at the job worker's premises, cannot be the reason to deny the cenvat benefit and more particularly, the refund app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ob workers' premises, the cenvat benefit for the said compensated quantity shall not be available. It is his submissions that the appellant is not entitled for the refund claim, because the provisions of Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 have not been strictly followed while bringing back the processed sugar from the job worker's premises. Therefore, he submits that the authorities below are justified in denying the refund benefit to the appellant. 5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records. 6. I find from the available records that the appellant availed the Cenvat credit with regard to the quantity of 98.107.55 quintals of raw sugar received in the factory. The fact is not in dispute that the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of process loss, the manufacturer is also required to reverse the cenvat credit. Thus, in absence of any specific stipulation being contained in the cenvat statute for reversing the cenvat credit attributable to the shortage in the quantity received in the factory on account of process loss, denial of cenvat benefit is not proper and is contrary to the statutory mandates. In this context, I find that this Tribunal in the case of Bharat Radiators (Supra) has held that cenvat credit cannot be denied for the loss of goods received back after processing from the job worker. The submissions of the Respondent that the appellant has not submitted any details regarding the actual loss during process of raw material, I find that the said submissio....