2018 (2) TMI 525

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pondent. ORDER The appellant is aggrieved only by imposition of penalty by the lower Authorities and are not contesting the case on merits. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pesticides liable to Central Excise duty. During the period February, 2007 to March, 2009 they have received duty paid final products back into their factory. They have tak....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Section 11AC read with Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The lower Authorities confirmed the proposals in the notice. 2. The learned Counsel submitted that the credit availed on returned goods have been reversed with interest, on being pointed out by the Department. They are not contesting the said reversal. Since, the full amount of credit, found to be ineligible under the terms of Rul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....returned back to them. There is no dispute regarding duty paid nature of the returned goods. The only point is that such returned goods cannot be put to further process as they are already past their expiry date. As such, the credit availed by the appellant in terms of Rule 16 is not correct. Admittedly, the appellants cannot reprocess the returned goods due to statutory regulations governing pest....