M/S. Dresser Valves India Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Coimbatore
- CitationAppeal Nos.275
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where goods removed at concessional duty are returned by the buyer as defective, the return is governed by the proviso to Rule 6 of the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001, and the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of that proviso, whether by way of replacement or account adjustment, merely because the returned goods were not shown to have been replaced by the supplier. Where the record establishes the return of goods but does not establish their replacement, and the revenue raises factual questions about the origin of the supplies and the places of re-warehousing, those matters must be verified by the adjudicating authority through an enquiry into receipt of replacement material, after affording the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing, before the claim is determined.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos.275 & 276/2013 dated 27.8.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore)
M/s. Dresser Valves India Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Coimbatore Respondent
Appearance
Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
CORAM
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of Hearing / Decision: 25.09.2015
Final Order No. 41286-41287 / 2015
There is no dispute between the parties as to the extent of re-warehousing certificate issued by the Department, copy of which is available at page 45 & 46 of appeal folder, when part of the goods in a consignment was returned back by the appellant finding that to be defective. Appellant says that such defective goods were considered to be returned back to the supplier in terms of proviso to Rule 6 of the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods), Rules 2001.
2. Revenue disputes to the return of the goods.
3. Heard both sides and perused the records as well as the rules concerned.
4. When there is a mandate in terms of the proviso to Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules, the appellant cannot be denied to the benefit of return of the goods either for replacement or for any account adjustment. Even though pages 45 & 46 establishes the return of the goods it is not able to show that the goods were replaced by the supplier. Learned DR at this stage points out that the supplies were from different place and re-warehousing at different places. All such aspect needs verification. Therefore, matter is remanded to adjudicating authority to conduct an enquiry as to receipt of the material by the appellant as replacement of the returned material. If so he shall pass appropriate order granting fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. Panda) Judicial Member Rex
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free