2015 (9) TMI 1378 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - CENVAT Credit - whether or not appellant is entitled to refund of an amount paid by the appellant representing CENVAT credit availed on inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods lost in fire accident when appellant has recovered the said amount from the Insurance Company - Held that - The final order passed by Hon ble Gujarat High Court 2013 (4) TMI 532 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT held that above amendment carried out in Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules is only prospective and not retrospective - In the present appeal also the period of dispute is before 07.09.2007, therefore, the law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court squarely applies to the case of the appellant and has to be followed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to refund of CENVAT credit on inputs lost in fire accident when amount is recovered from Insurance Company.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal regarding the refund of CENVAT credit availed on inputs lost in a fire accident, which was recovered from the Insurance Company. The adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority had denied the refund, stating that the duty burden had already been passed on to the Insurance Company. The appellant relied on the case laws of Karnataka High Court and Gujarat High Court to support their claim for the refund. On the other hand, the Revenue cited judgments from Punjab & Haryana High Court and CESTAT Delhi to argue against the admissibility of the credit.

The issue revolved around conflicting case laws, with references made to judgments from various High Courts and CESTAT. The Karnataka High Court held that availing CENVAT credit on capital goods destroyed in a fire accident, even if recovered from insurance, was legitimate. The Gujarat High Court also supported the appellant's position, emphasizing that the credit accrued when the raw material was used in manufacturing, and the amendment to the Cenvat Credit Rules was prospective, not retrospective.

The final decision favored the appellant, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief. The judgment highlighted the importance of the legislative intent behind the rules and clarified that the appellant was entitled to retain the CENVAT credit even if the amount was recovered from the Insurance Company. The retrospective versus prospective nature of the rule amendment was crucial in determining the applicability of the reversal of credit. Ultimately, the judgment upheld the appellant's right to the credit based on the prevailing legal interpretations and precedents cited.