TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 645
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the scope of the show cause notice is without and in excess of jurisdiction. BRIEF FACTS: 2. The appellant availed MODVAT credit and rejected / returned final products which where rejected by its customers. The rejected or returned goods were either subjected to dipping or testing or repacking and later cleared on payment of appropriate duty on the assessable value. The original authority denied / rejected the appellant's claim of credit on the premise that the defective or rejected final product is not entitled to credit inasmuch as the returned defective / rejected final products do not constitute ''inputs''. The goods returned / rejected do not satisfy the prerequisite for availing MODVAT credit viz., that the inp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d final products mentioned against the sl.no.1 to 3 of Annexure B to the Show Cause Notice OC No.146/2002 dated 1.3.2002, and order recovery of the said amount from MCL under Section 11A(1) of CEA read with rule 57AH of Rules read with rule 12 of CCR and read with Section 38A of the CEA. I also impose penalty of Rs.500/- (Rs.Five Hundred Only) under rule 173Q of Rules read with rule 25 of CER, rule 12 & 13 of CCR read with Section 38A of CEA.'' 3. The Appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise Appeals, wherein, the Commissioner(Appeals) while agreeing that the appellant is entitled to avail CENVAT credit had proceeded to issue directions whereby, CENVAT credit shall be allowed subject to the condition t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....later period, the lower authority vide Order- in-Original No.18/2003 dated 31.03.2003 allowed credit of duty paid on the returned goods. Consequently, in view of the above discussions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any valid reason to hold a strict view of denying CENVAT credit during the interregnum. Thus the appellants are allowed to avail CENVAT credit of duty paid on the rejected /returned goods. However it is also made clear that no CENVAT credit can be allowed contrary to the provisions of Rules and hence the appellants are not entitled to avail credit where they are not in a position to produce eligible documents to substantiate the duty payment. It is also ordered that the CENVAT credit is al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... check whether the bar of unjust enrichment is crossed or not even though such an issue was not specifically mentioned in the show cause notice seeking to reject the refund. We observe that it is in the interest of justice to give each one its due. There is no harm at all to check up whether the quantum of credit is correctly arrived at or not. It is not that the Commissioner (Appeals) is directing something which is impracticable. The appeals are rejected.'' 5. Now, it is trite law that the Tribunal cannot issue directions which in effect traverse beyond the Show Cause Notice nor can it issue directions in respect of the aspects never canvassed by the Revenue. Placing reliance on the above proposition, it is submitted by the learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sustain the case of the Revenue against the appellants on a ground not raised by the Revenue either in the show cause notice or in the order.'' d. In the case of Bhor Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2011 (266) E.L.T.444 (Bom.), in para no.10, it was held that: ''10.We are clearly of the opinion that the tribunal misdirected itself in travelling beyond the show cause notice. To that extent the direction issued in terms of Para 10 of the order of the tribunal directing Assistant Commissioner to communicate to the appellant duty required to be paid being without jurisdiction is set aside.'' e. In the case if Unichem Laboratories Ltd., Vs. CCE 2002 (145) ELT 502, it was held that:- ''No doubt that the ....