By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, DEC 08, 2017: THE appellant had taken credit of duty paid on certain readymade garments and after making changes in MRP and putting labels on such goods the appellant cleared the same after discharging Central Excise duty. Revenue sought to deny the Cenvat Credit of Rs.52,550/- on the ground that the "readymade garments" cannot be considered as "inputs" under CCR so as to allow credit.

The second issue relates to the fact that the appellant took Cenvat Credit on debit note issued by the parties but the said invoices were not produced by the appellants. Before the Commissioner(A), they submitted the invoices, namely, transporter copy of invoice but same was allegedly not taken cognizance of and the credit of Rs.81,357/- was denied.

An appeal was filed against this order of Commissioner(A).

The appellant failed to appear before CESTAT.

The AR reiterated the stand taken by the lower authorities to support the order.

The Bench observed -

++ In terms of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, the appellants are entitled to avail credit when the goods are brought in the factory for certain processes. It is not necessary, the said process should amount to manufacture . In these circumstances, I do not find any error on the part of the appellants and the appeal on this count is allowed.

++ Insofar as the second issue is concerned, the appellant have clearly stated that they have submitted the invoice before the Commissioner. As evidence of submission they had given a letter dated 19/02/2014 wherein they have submitted that they had produced duplicate copy of sale invoice on 18/02/2014 and the same was verified by the Superintendent.In view of the above, the appeal insofar as it relates to second count is allowed by way of remand.

The appeal was partly allowed.

(See 2017-TIOL-4319-CESTAT-MUM)