2012 (10) TMI 1 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of cenvat credit - damage to the inputs by fire Held that - Settlement made by the Insurance company was communicated on 24-4-2007. The first appellate order was passed on 23-5-2008. Communication of Insurance company indicates that there was damage of stock, plant, machinery & building due to fire. When such a supporting document was available the appellant could have come forward to adduce the evidence before the adjudicating authority who completed adjudication on 31-10-2007 i.e. 6 months after settlement of claim by insurance company - appellant is coming out with fresh evidence at this second appellate stage which is not permissible - appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of Cenvat credit on inputs damaged by fire.
2. Failure to produce documentary evidence for the claim.
3. Consideration of fresh evidence at the second appellate stage.

Analysis:
1. The appellant claimed damage to inputs by fire, seeking Cenvat credit. However, the adjudicating authority denied the credit due to lack of evidence. The appellant failed to produce documentary evidence supporting the claim, as evident from the adjudication order and the Commissioner (Appeals) order. Despite multiple opportunities for hearings and submission of documents during the stay order, the appellant did not present the necessary evidence. The settlement by the Insurance company confirming the damage was communicated before the first appellate order, indicating the availability of supporting documents at an earlier stage. The adjudication was completed months after the insurance claim settlement, making it unreasonable to introduce new evidence at the second appellate stage.

2. The lack of documentary evidence and failure to present supporting documents before the adjudicating authority led to the denial of Cenvat credit on the damaged inputs. The appellant's inability to substantiate the claim throughout the adjudication process, including hearings and submission of documents, weakened their case. The settlement communication from the Insurance company clearly outlined the damage due to fire, which should have been presented during the initial adjudication. The delay in providing evidence and attempting to introduce fresh evidence at the second appellate stage was deemed impermissible, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

3. The appellant's attempt to introduce fresh evidence at the second appellate stage was considered inappropriate and against the established legal principles. The appellate tribunal emphasized the importance of presenting all relevant evidence and supporting documents during the initial adjudication process. By failing to do so and waiting until the second appellate stage to introduce new evidence, the appellant undermined the integrity of the adjudicative process. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed based on the inadmissibility of fresh evidence at the second appellate stage, highlighting the significance of timely and comprehensive presentation of evidence in legal proceedings.