2014 (2) TMI 208 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery of CENVAT Credit availed - Whether a denial of Cenvat Credit to the appellant on the inputs consumed during the course of manufacturing and got destroyed before reaching the stage of finished goods is liable to be recovered - Held that - On perusal of the provisions of Rule 3(5C) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, it is seen that the said rule envisages recovery of duty paid on inputs and availed as Cenvat Credit when as assessee seeks remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In my considered view, the said Rule 3(5C) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, can be invoked as and when the assessee seeks remission of duty, which is not the case in hand. In the case in hand, there was no application filed by the appellant for remission of duty quite rightly so as the goods which were destroyed were semi-finished products or work in process and have not attained the stage of finished goods. Merely because the Insurance Company paid the assessee the value of goods including the excise duty paid, that would not render the availment of the cenvat credit wrong or irregular, assessee has paid the premium and covered the risk of this capital goods and when the goods were destroyed in terms of the insurance policy, the Insurance Company has compensated the assessee - Following decision of Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore Vs. Tata Advanced Materials Ltd. 2011 (4) TMI 1124 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Recovery of Cenvat Credit availed on inputs destroyed in fire/explosion.
2. Applicability of Rule 3(5C) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Compensation received from insurance company and its impact on Cenvat Credit.

Issue 1: Recovery of Cenvat Credit availed on inputs destroyed in fire/explosion:
The appeal was against an order proposing to recover Cenvat Credit availed on inputs used in manufacturing finished goods destroyed due to fire/explosion. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands along with interest and penalty. The first appellate authority upheld the order, stating that compensation received from the insurance company indicated compensation for Cenvat Credit involved in the inputs. The appellant argued that Rule 3(5C) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, invoked in the show cause notice, was not applicable in this case.

Issue 2: Applicability of Rule 3(5C) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The appellant contended that Rule 3(5C) could not be applied as they did not seek remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The destruction occurred before the goods reached the final stage, and no application for remission was filed. The Tribunal agreed, stating that Rule 3(5C) could only be invoked when an assessee seeks remission of duty, which was not the case here as the destroyed goods were not finished products.

Issue 3: Compensation received from insurance company and its impact on Cenvat Credit:
The first appellate authority rejected the appeal based on the appellant being compensated by the insurance company for the duty paid on inputs. However, the Tribunal referred to a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which clarified that compensation from insurance does not render Cenvat Credit irregular. The High Court's ruling stated that the Excise Department cannot demand reversal of credit or non-payment based on insurance compensation. The Tribunal found this reasoning to be in line with the law and ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal based on the High Court's judgment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the order demanding recovery of Cenvat Credit, citing the inapplicability of Rule 3(5C) in this case and the legal precedent that insurance compensation does not affect the validity of Cenvat Credit claimed.