9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (10) TMI 364 - AT - Central ExciseCenvat Credit - Capital goods destroyed - Insurance claim received - Revenue contended incurance claim is cum duty - Held That - there cannot be a demand for duty in absence of removal/destruction. In this case, as already observed, there is no evidence to show that the capital goods have been destroyed or removed. When the capital goods have not been destroyed/removed and are in the factory and are in use, CENVAT Credit taken cannot be demanded. In this case, it is not because of non-use of capital goods that the CENVAT Credit that is being demanded but due to the fact of insurance claim amount received by the appellant. Treating it as cum duty amount, duty has been demanded. In this case, the demand has been made under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The first element that has to be shown for such demand is the fact that the CENVAT Credit has been taken and input/capital goods have not been used in accordance with the rules. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Demand of duty on excess premium refund, demand of duty on insurance claim related to capital goods breakdown, relevance of insurance claim in relation to CENVAT Credit, applicability of CENVAT Credit Rules. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad involved a case where a limited company engaged in manufacturing excisable goods faced a demand for duty on various amounts received as insurance claims. The company received amounts in the years 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08, claiming these were insurance claims for damaged or destroyed input and capital goods, on which they had taken CENVAT Credit. The Commissioner upheld the duty demand, invoking an extended period and imposing penalties, leading to the company's appeal. The first issue addressed was the demand for duty on the excess premium refund received by the company. The Tribunal found the demand unjustified as the company had received a refund of excess premium, but the duty demand lacked clarity on the legal basis. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of specific mention of the Section or Rule under which duty was demanded. It questioned the liability of excess premium refunded by the insurance company to excise duty, ultimately finding no justification to sustain this demand. The second issue involved the duty demand on the insurance claim amount related to breakdowns of capital goods. The Tribunal noted that duty was demanded based on the presumption that the insurance claims were for damaged or destroyed capital goods, without concrete evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the claim that the insurance was related to machinery breakdown rather than goods destruction. It also highlighted the absence of proof regarding the utilization of CENVAT Credit on these capital goods, questioning the basis for demanding duty without clear evidence of removal or destruction of goods. Further, the Tribunal discussed the relevance of insurance claims in relation to CENVAT Credit Rules. It pointed out that duty demands cannot be made solely based on insurance claims when capital goods remain in the factory and are in use. The Tribunal emphasized the need for evidence of removal or destruction before demanding duty on CENVAT Credit. It highlighted the application of Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, emphasizing the requirement to demonstrate non-compliance with rules regarding the use of input or capital goods, which was not evidenced in this case. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the company's appeal and providing consequential relief. The judgment underscored the importance of concrete evidence and compliance with CENVAT Credit Rules before demanding duty based on insurance claims related to capital goods.
|
