2008 (11) TMI 142 - AT - Central Excise

Appellants had sent partially processed inputs to their job worker which was destroyed in a fire - remission claim rejected on the ground that the inputs were damaged not because of the fire but because of water used for extinguishing the fire, is not justified - job worker had informed the police, the local GIDC and insurance company etc. who have all verified - only omission was that Central Excise authorities were not informed - once inputs are issued for manufacture, the requirement of CCR is fulfilled and therefore if the products get destroyed, the assessee need not have to reverse the Credit taken on the inputs

Summary

Issues: Claim for remission of duty on destroyed inputs; Interpretation of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules; Entitlement to Cenvat credit on destroyed inputs.

In this case, the appellants sent partially processed inputs to their job worker, which were destroyed in a fire. The job worker filed an FIR with the police and informed various authorities, but the Revenue was intimated later. The remission claim for duty on the inputs was rejected, citing Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, which provides remission only for final products. The Commissioner noted that the appellants did not have insurance covering the duty element and that the goods were damaged by water used for extinguishing the fire, not by the fire itself.

The main argument revolved around whether the inputs sent for repacking and re-labeling amounted to manufacture, making the appellants eligible for remission. The appellants contended that there was no time limitation for filing a remission claim, and the fire accident should be the determining factor, not the time of intimation. They also argued that the Commissioner failed to consider the steps taken by the job worker and the investigation conducted by various authorities. The appellants relied on precedent cases to support their claim for Cenvat credit on inputs issued for manufacture.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the job worker had informed relevant authorities about the fire, except for the Central Excise authorities. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's argument that remission cannot be granted since the inputs were damaged by water, not fire. Referring to the Larger Bench decision in M/s. Grasim Industries case, the Tribunal held that once inputs are issued for manufacture, the requirement of Cenvat Credit Rules is fulfilled, and if the products are destroyed in a fire, the Cenvat credit need not be reversed. The Tribunal concluded that the fire was an accident, and the destroyed materials issued for manufacture did not require the reversal of the Cenvat credit. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the appellants were not required to reverse the credit taken on the destroyed inputs.