2008 (5) TMI 209 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of the reversal of the Cenvat credit which was in respect of the inputs and capital goods, which got destroyed in the fire in the factory premises of the appellant since it is not disputed that inputs used in intermediate products and capital goods were destroyed in fire accident, reversal of credit is not required - issue is squarely covered in favour of the respondents by the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Grasim Industries revenue s appeal is rejected

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration of Cenvat credit reversal on inputs and capital goods destroyed in fire.
2. Application of the decision of the Larger Bench in Grasim Industries case.
3. Dispute regarding reversal of Cenvat credit on capital goods.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal was filed challenging the Order-in-Appeal that confirmed the demand for the reversal of Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods destroyed in a fire at the factory premises. The JDR argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide sufficient reasoning for allowing the appeal regarding capital goods. The JDR requested the issue to be referred back for reconsideration. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that the issue was covered by the decision of the Larger Bench in Grasim Industries. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the entire appeal based on the interlinked nature of the issues concerning inputs and capital goods. The Revenue did not contest the loss of goods due to fire, and the appeal was rejected, following the precedent set by the Grasim Industries case.

Issue 2:
The application of the decision of the Larger Bench in the Grasim Industries case played a crucial role in the judgment. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal based on the reasoning that the loss of capital goods and intermediate products in the fire was accidental, and the denial of credit on inputs for intermediate goods was unjustified. The decision of the Larger Bench was followed to reject the Revenue's appeal and dispose of the cross-objections in favor of the respondents.

Issue 3:
Regarding the dispute over the reversal of Cenvat credit on capital goods, the adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand based on similar reasoning used for intermediate goods. The adjudicating authority held that the Cenvat credit on capital goods not used in the manufacture of the final product must be reversed. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal in its entirety, considering the interconnected nature of the issues and the accidental loss due to fire. The judgment upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment extensively analyzed the issues related to the reversal of Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods destroyed in a fire, applying the precedent set by the Grasim Industries case and emphasizing the accidental nature of the loss.