TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 338
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthority. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant during the material period was engaged in the manufacture of Quartz Analog Wrist Watch Movements falling under Chapter Sub-Heading No. 91 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 under a valid central excise registration. The appellant was availing Cenvat Credit on the inputs to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of their finished products. During the material period in dispute i.e. 19.02.2001 to 18.02.2003, the appellant availed Cenvat Credit of Rs.9,40,297/- in respect of the rejected finished goods received back from their buyer namely M/s P.A. Pinions, New Delhi who had addressed the letters to the appellant mentioning details of invoice no., date, q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er submits that as soon as the goods received back from the buyer being defective, as per the various invoices the date and quantity of Watch Components, being returned on account of defect, were mentioned, the appellant had shown the defective goods returned to the factory in relevant pages of RG 23A Part-I, wherein the appellant had reflected entries of receipt thereof and subsequent issuance to the production area for manufacture of finished products. He further submits that the appellant had also furnished the relevant pages of RG 23A Part-I for the period in dispute with respective monthly returns filed by them before the Superintendent, Central Excise & Customs Range, Deoghat, Solan (H.P.). In support of his submission that the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India Ltd - (2024) 19 Centax 46 (Cal.) • Medisray Laboratories P. Ltd vs. Commr of CGST, Kolhapur - 2019 (369) ELT 717 (Tri. Mumbai) 4.3 The learned Counsel further submits that the observations made by the AG Audit (H.P.) during audit of the records were within the knowledge of the department from the date of conclusion of the audit for the financial years 2001 to 2003 and the department did not issue the show cause notice for more than three years and further the impugned show cause notice was issued without any investigation conducted by the department from the date of conclusion of audit. He further submits that it has been consistently held by various Courts that when the relevant facts are well within the knowledge of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for manufacture of finished products but has not been able to establish that the same were cleared on payment of duty. Further, the appellant has also not strictly followed the procedure as prescribed in Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. In the absence of clear proof of payment of duty after re-processing of defective goods, it will be difficult for me to give a concrete finding on the said issue; but as far as extended period of limitation is concerned, I find that the appellant has shown the defective goods returned in RG 23A Part-I and has been regularly filing monthly returns before the department and the department has not raised any objection and only during the course of audit conducted by AG Audit (H.P.) during 06.09.2003 to 2....