TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 298
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Excise, Pune Division - VIII, holding as follows: "ORDER (i) I confirm the demand of Rs. 2,44,406/- (Rs. 2,37,232/-+ Ed Cess Rs. 4753/-+Rs. 2421/-) to be recovered from them under the provisions of Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 16(1) & 16 (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (ii) I confirm the demand of interest, at appropriate rate, on above to be recovered from them under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AA (erstwhile Section 11AB) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (iii) I impose penalty of Rs. 2,44,406/- upon them under the provisions of Rule 15 (2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AC of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Hence this appeal. 3.1 Matter was listed for hearing on 3rd November 2021, Appellant chose to abstain. Records suggest that the appellants have been abstaining from the hearing on the last ten occasions when the matter got listed on 20.02.2018, 15.03.2019, 03.05.2019, 02.07.2019, 26.07.2019, 22.11.2019, 05.02.2020, 08.04.2021, 06.08.2021, & 21.09.2021. So the matter was taken up for hearing and consideration ex-parte. 3.2 I have heard Shri Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent, Authorized Representative for the revenue. 3.3 Learned authorized representative submits that the issue involved in this appeal is no longer res-integra, and has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts and sent back, they were returning the goods to their customers only on payment of duty, and they rely upon the Tribunal's decision on Golden Iron and Steel Works v. CCE, 2003 (155) E.L.T. 330 to support their submission that the process of subjecting the returned goods to further inspection and test would result in process of manufacture of goods returned to the customer once again on payment of duty. However, in the present case, there is no material to show that any rejected goods were returned once again to their customers and that too on payment of duty. 3. In the light of the above, I hold that the appellants are not eligible to credit, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal." 4.4 In case of International Tobac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The credit shall be utilised by the assessee according to the latter Rules. 23. The purpose of manufacture of goods in this case is sale. Bringing the goods back to the factory after they have been removed for sale does not ordinarily make good business sense. However, at times for some valid reasons, the goods cannot be sold or they are not fit for retention in the market. In such circumstances, the goods may be recalled and brought to the factory. In terms of Rule 16(1), these goods are brought to the factory for being "re-made, refined, re-conditioned or for any other reason". After being subjected to said processes, the goods are again removed having become saleable commodities and worthy ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have to be in the likeness of the processes which immediately precede the aforesaid phrase. All the processes should have such similarities so as to be constituted into the same class. 28. The legislature has employed the words "re-made", "refined", "re-conditioned" and the phrase, "or for any other reason" and eschewed the phrase "for being scrapped". Understanding this distinction is the key to interpreting the scope of "re-made", "refined", "reconditioned" and the phrase, "or for any other reason". 29. The essential characteristics of the brought back goods survive even after they are "re-made", "refined" or "reconditioned". The original identity of the goods is retained even after the goods undergo the said processes.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... correct interpretation of Rule 16(1), as stated in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment. 34. We find that the Learned Appellate Tribunal, while interpreting the phrase, "any other reason", in Rule 16(1) and held that the same was "wide enough to cover the case of the appellants". Consequentially, the Learned Appellate Tribunal included scrapping within the fold of Rule 16(1). 35. It is evident that the Learned Appellate Tribunal has incorrectly interpreted the scope of Rule 16(1) by bringing scrapping within the embrace of Rule 16(1) and has proceeded to legitimise the benefit of Cenvat availed by the respondent-assessee. These fault-lines vitiate the judgment of the Learned Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tr....