2006 (4) TMI 13 - AT - Central Excise

Central Excise Cenvat credit Input destroyed due to fire and Cenvat credit to be reversed or not matter referred to Larger Bench

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Reversal of modvat credit on inputs used for manufacturing final products destroyed in fire.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi addresses the issue of reversing modvat credit on inputs utilized for manufacturing final products that were destroyed in a fire at the factory of the appellants. The Tribunal notes that there are conflicting views on this matter by different Division Benches. One view, as seen in the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited v. CCE, suggests that if the insurance compensates the assessee for the value of the finished goods destroyed in the fire, then the modvat credit on the inputs used for manufacturing those goods must be reversed. On the other hand, the Division Bench in the case of Electrolux Kelvinator Limited v. CCE, Jaipur-I opined that there is no need to reverse the modvat credit on inputs used for manufacturing final products destroyed in a fire, even if duty has been paid on those inputs.

Given the conflicting views on this issue, the Tribunal decides to refer the matter to a Larger Bench to determine the correct interpretation. As a result of this reference, a stay is granted to the appellants. The specific issue referred to the Larger Bench for consideration is whether, when inputs on which credit has been availed are used for manufacturing final products that are destroyed due to fire and adequately compensated by insurance (minus excise duty), the attributable modvat credit on such inputs should be reversed when remission of duty is granted on the finished goods destroyed in the fire or accident.

In conclusion, the Tribunal directs that the matter be presented before the Hon'ble President to constitute a Larger Bench to resolve the issue of reversing modvat credit on inputs used for manufacturing final products destroyed in a fire, considering the differing perspectives presented by the Division Benches. The judgment emphasizes the importance of clarifying this matter to ensure consistency and accuracy in the application of modvat credit rules in such circumstances.