2018 (1) TMI 357 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - remission of duty granted on inputs/raw materials contained in the finished goods/semi finished goods destroyed by fire - Held that - reliance placed in the case of GRASIM INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE 2006 (8) TMI 69 - CESTAT,NEW DELHI , where on similar issue, Adjudicating authority decided that no requirement of reversal of credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against demand of reversal of cenvat credit on destroyed goods due to fire, violation of natural justice, issuance of demand show cause notice, power to impose conditions under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules 2002.

Analysis:

1. Violation of Natural Justice:
The appellant claimed that they were not given notice during the adjudication of their remission application regarding the requirement to pay or reverse the credit amount. However, it was found that a demand show cause notice was indeed issued to the appellant on 16.11.2007 seeking reversal of cenvat credit. The argument that no notice was issued was deemed without substance. The appellant argued that the department cannot recover any dues without issuing a show cause notice and that there are no powers to impose conditions under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. The appellant relied on the decision of the Larger Bench of Tribunal in the case of Grasim Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore to support their argument that no condition can be imposed while granting remission.

2. Reversal of Credit and Remission:
The Tribunal referred to Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, which provide for remission of duty in cases of goods lost or destroyed by natural causes or unavoidable accidents. The Tribunal concluded that these rules do not mandate the reversal of credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of such goods. The Tribunal also highlighted that the Modvat rules prohibit the credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods or goods chargeable at a nil rate of duty. It was emphasized that when goods are destroyed due to natural causes or unavoidable accidents, the inputs can be considered to have been put to their intended use for manufacturing the final product. The Tribunal approved the view that the assessee does not have to reverse the credit taken on inputs used in goods destroyed by natural causes or accidents when remission is granted.

3. Decision and Approval:
The Tribunal's decision in the case was based on the above analysis and the approval of the decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras as reported in 2015. Following the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench of Tribunal approved by the High Court of Madras, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant's contention regarding the reversal of credit in the case of destroyed goods due to fire was upheld.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues raised, the arguments presented, and the legal interpretation applied by the Tribunal in arriving at its decision.