2012 (4) TMI 527 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Goods destroyed in fire enjoyed remission claim by adjudication order - Held that - Commissioner examined the remanded issue and even in absence of assessee, allowed remission noticing that fire occurred on 18-6-2004 destroyed the goods. He noticed that as against the goods destroyed on 18-6-2004 which was confiscated by Revenue the appellant paid duty on 21-10-2004. The goods were destroyed by fire while it was under superdnama of the appellant. Those goods cannot get Cenvat credit as it is established principle of law that no one can enjoy at the cost of Revenue since the appellant was granted relief of remission and exchequer has also sacrificed duty component. There is no logic to unduly enrich the appellant when the input of respective value was destroyed and remission was allowed. Therefore, the order for reversal of Cenvat credit is justified in the eyes of law which calls for no interference - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal for reversal of Cenvat credit on destroyed goods due to fire incident.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought to reverse the direction to reverse the Cenvat credit availed on inputs contained in goods destroyed by fire under the appellant's superdnama. The occurrence of fire on 18-6-2004 was acknowledged, and the remission claim for the destroyed goods was granted by the adjudication order. The appellant argued that the direction to reverse the Cenvat credit should be set aside.

2. The Revenue representative explained that the fire incident and intimation to the Commissioner were recorded in the adjudication order. The Tribunal had previously waived a penalty in a related case. The adjudicating authority allowed the remission aspect after it was remanded by the Tribunal. The Revenue contended that granting Cenvat credit for the inputs in the destroyed goods would lead to undue enrichment for the appellant, as the duty relief had already been granted.

3. Upon hearing the arguments and examining the Commissioner's order, it was noted that the remission was allowed for the goods destroyed by fire while under the appellant's superdnama. The Commissioner emphasized that the appellant cannot enjoy Cenvat credit for goods destroyed when relief and duty components were already granted. The order for the reversal of Cenvat credit was deemed justified and in accordance with the law, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

4. The judgment highlighted the principle that no party should benefit at the expense of the Revenue, especially when relief and remission have already been granted. The decision to reverse the Cenvat credit on the destroyed goods was upheld as it prevented undue enrichment for the appellant. The appeal was ultimately dismissed based on these grounds.