9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 245 - AT - Central ExciseRejection of refund claim of the interest - Remission of duty due to fire accident took place in the factory - assessee reversed the cenvat credit on asked by the dept but later on realizing that in terms of the Cenvat Credit Rules they were not required to reverse the credit filed an application for refund which was denied - Held that - The fire accident had taken placed on 19.7.2005 & for the period prior to 7.9.2007 this issue was governed by the judgment of Grasim Industries vs. C.C.E., (2006 (8) TMI 69 - CESTAT,NEW DELHI) holding that where any finished goods lost /destroyed in fire or accident, and remission of duty under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules is claimed in respect of said goods, Cenvat credit in respect of inputs is not required to be reversed. Also see C.C.E., Ahmedabad II vs. Intas Pharamaceuticals Ltd. 2013 (4) TMI 532 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . Besides this, the fact that the Appellant had received compensation for finished goods lost in fire, from insurance company which included the element of duty on finished goods lost, would also not come in the way of availing cenvat credit in view of judgment Tata Advanced Materials Ltd. (2011 (4) TMI 1124 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) that when in respect of finished goods lost in fire in this case, the input cenvat credit was not required to be reversed, for claiming remission of duty, there was no question of payment of interest on such cenvat credit. The impugned order upholding the denial of refund is, therefore, not sustainable. In favour of assessee.
Issues:
Claim for refund of interest on cenvat credit wrongly reversed due to fire accident. Analysis: The appellant, a manufacturer of PU foam chargeable to central excise duty, faced a fire accident on 19.7.2005, resulting in the destruction of finished goods with central excise duty of Rs.23,64,289. The Department required the appellant to reverse the cenvat credit amounting to Rs.18,21,174 on inputs used in the destroyed goods before claiming remission of duty under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant paid the required amount along with interest of Rs.2,35,373, and the remission of duty was allowed. Subsequently, realizing that they were not required to reverse the credit as per the rules at that time, the appellant applied for a refund of the credit and interest. The refund application was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the current appeal challenging the rejection of the interest refund. The appellant argued that before the amendment in the Cenvat Credit Rules, there was no requirement to reverse cenvat credit for remission of duty on goods lost in accidents like the fire incident in this case. They cited relevant case laws and judgments to support their claim that the credit reversal was not mandatory during the period in question. The appellant emphasized that since the cenvat credit itself was not required to be reversed for remission of duty, there should be no payment of interest on the credit. Therefore, they contended that the rejection of the interest refund was unjustified. After considering the submissions from both sides and reviewing the records, the judge noted that the rules regarding cenvat credit reversal for goods lost in accidents were amended only from 7.9.2007 onwards. Prior to this amendment, judgments by the Tribunal and High Courts supported the appellant's argument that cenvat credit reversal was not necessary for remission of duty on goods lost in accidents. The judge referred to relevant case laws, including the decisions of Larger Benches, to establish that the appellant's claim for refund of interest on the wrongly reversed cenvat credit was valid. The judge concluded that since the appellant had already paid the cenvat credit amount along with interest and was now seeking a refund of the interest, they were entitled to it. Consequently, the impugned order denying the interest refund was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant with consequential relief.
|
