2017 (1) TMI 22 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT credit - The appellants purchased DG Sets in February, 97 and installed the same in their factory in the state of Karnataka and were using the same. Later on the same were shifted to their unit at Imlai in Madhya Pradesh, where the same were installed on 03.06.2002 and used - damage of machinery due to fire - insurance compensation received - reversal of credit on the ground that the same were deemed to have been removed and the same tantamount to claiming cenvat credit irregularly and that the applicant suppressed relevant facts - whether reversal justified? Held that - the subject matter is covered by the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE vs. Tata Advanced Materials Ltd., 2011 (4) TMI 1124 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , where it was held that 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 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against demand of Cenvat Credit, destruction of capital goods in fire, reversal of credit, applicability of Cenvat Credit Rules, interpretation of relevant case laws.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by M/s Diamond Cement against the Commissioner's order confirming the demand of Cenvat Credit amounting to ?68,71,639 along with interest and penalty. The dispute arose from a fire accident at the appellants' unit in Madhya Pradesh where a DG set was destroyed, and the insurance company compensated the loss. The show cause notice alleged irregular claiming of Cenvat credit on the destroyed capital goods. The appellants contended that the goods were not removed but destroyed in an accident, and they had availed credit legitimately. The appellants argued that there was no provision for reversal of credit in case of destruction due to fire, citing relevant case laws like Biopac India Corporation Ltd. and Tata Advance Materials.

The appellant's advocate argued that since the capital goods were not removed but destroyed in a fire accident, the question of reversal of credit under Rule 3(4) of the Credit Rules did not arise. They emphasized that the goods were used in the factory for a significant period before the incident, and there was no provision in the Credit Rules for credit reversal in case of destruction due to fire. The advocate relied on precedents like Biopac India Corporation Ltd. and Tata Advance Materials to support their arguments regarding the admissibility of credit on destroyed capital goods.

The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and considering the facts and case laws cited, found that the issue was squarely covered by the decisions in the Biopac India Corporation Ltd. case upheld by the Gujarat High Court and the Tata Advance Materials case upheld by the Karnataka High Court. These judgments emphasized that if capital goods had been used in manufacturing before being destroyed in a fire, there was no justification for credit reversal. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, providing consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the Cenvat Credit Rules and relevant case laws regarding the admissibility of credit on capital goods destroyed in a fire accident. The judgment highlighted that if the goods had been used in manufacturing before destruction, there was no basis for credit reversal. The decision provided clarity on the issue and upheld the appellant's claim, citing established legal precedents to support the ruling.