2005 (3) TMI 497 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Claim of remission of duty for inputs lost in accidental fire.

Analysis:
The appeal in this case arose from an Order-in-Appeal where the appellants had availed Modvat credit for inputs lost in a fire accident. The appellants claimed that they should not reverse the Modvat credit as the inputs were lost due to an accidental fire. They relied on a Tribunal judgment in the case of Asian Paints (I) Ltd., which stated that if inputs are lost due to a fire accident after being issued for manufacturing, the duty can be remitted. The learned SDR, however, argued that the issue was about demanding duty on the lost inputs, not remission of duty.

Upon considering the arguments, the Member found that as per the Tribunal's judgment in the Asian Paints case, if inputs are lost due to an accidental fire after being issued for manufacturing, the duty can be remitted. The Member noted that the case cited by the SDR was distinguishable as the Insurance Company had settled the claim in that case, unlike in the present case where the duty portion of the claim was not settled. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

This judgment clarifies that if inputs are lost due to an accidental fire after being issued for manufacturing, the duty can be remitted. It also emphasizes the distinction between demanding duty on lost inputs and claiming remission of duty in such cases. The decision is based on established legal principles and precedents set by previous Tribunal judgments.