2010 (6) TMI 473 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - Remission of duty - As a result of explosion on 3-11-98 in the factory premises of the assessee, certain semi finished goods were destroyed. - The assessee approached the Revenue for remission of duty on the said semi finished goods which request was rejected. The appellant approached the Tribunal and the matter was remanded vide Order dated 16-8-07 for passing a reasoned order. It is seen in remand Commissioner vide his order dated 29-10-07 observed that since the goods that were destroyed in the factory on 3-11-98 were semi finished goods which were yet to attain RG-1 stage and therefore not attracting any central excise duty. He accordingly rejected the remission application. - Show cause notice was issued to the respondents on 29-4-99 seeking to recover the modvat credit of duty involved in the inputs used in the manufacture of the semi finished goods - Revenue s appeal lacks merit and is rejected accordingly - The issue of reversal of credit would arise only when the final product destroyed in the fire has been allowed remission of duty.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against remission of duty on destroyed semi-finished goods and reversal of modvat credit on inputs used in manufacturing, applicability of Tribunal decisions, adherence to legal principles.

Analysis:
1. Remission of Duty on Semi-Finished Goods: The case involved a manufacturer seeking remission of duty on semi-finished goods destroyed in an explosion. The Commissioner rejected the remission application, stating that the goods were yet to attain RG-1 stage and thus did not attract central excise duty. The Tribunal upheld this rejection, emphasizing that the goods' status as semi-finished meant they were not subject to duty.

2. Reversal of Modvat Credit: A show cause notice was issued to recover modvat credit on inputs used in manufacturing the destroyed semi-finished goods. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the credit recovery and imposed a penalty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this decision, citing a Tribunal ruling that credit on inputs destroyed in fire did not need to be reversed. The Tribunal, in the present case, upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the issue of reversing credit only arises if the final product is granted remission of duty.

3. Applicability of Tribunal Decisions: The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's decision in another case was under appeal and that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have followed a different Tribunal decision. The Tribunal rejected these arguments, highlighting that the decision under appeal was not stayed and was based on a Larger Bench judgment that had not been overturned. The Tribunal emphasized the need to follow the legal principle that decisions of Larger Benches supersede and overrule previous judgments.

4. Adherence to Legal Principles: The Revenue also argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have followed a specific decision, which had been overruled by a Larger Bench. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, stating that decisions of Larger Benches must be adhered to, and filing appeals against decisions following such legal principles was a waste of resources. Ultimately, the Tribunal found the Revenue's appeal lacking in merit and rejected it, emphasizing the importance of upholding legal principles and following precedents set by Larger Benches.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment upheld the decisions of the Commissioner regarding remission of duty on semi-finished goods and the reversal of modvat credit on inputs. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following legal principles, especially decisions of Larger Benches, and rejected the Revenue's appeal for lacking merit.