9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 399 - AT - Central ExciseReversal of Cenvat Credit goods damaged due to flood - Non-reversal of Cenvat Credit on plant and machinery and work in process goods - Respondents had received insurance claim for damages of raw materials, finished goods and spares due to flood Show-cause Notice issued for recovery of wrongly taken CENVAT Credit of under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, recovery of interest under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, read with Section 11AB ibid and for imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC ibid Held that - Relying upon the judgment of Voltamp Transformers Ltd. 2009 (12) TMI 743 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , the appeal filed by Revenue is rejected. The High Court dismissed the Revenue appeal in the abovementioned case following the larger bench decision by Hon ble High Court in the case of Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd 2013 (4) TMI 532 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , which was delivered on 29.08.2012. - Decided against the Revenue.
Issues:
Recovery of wrongly taken CENVAT Credit for damaged goods, interest, and penalty. Analysis: The appeal was against an Order-in-Appeal that addressed the issue of wrongly availed CENVAT Credit by the respondents for goods damaged in a flood. The respondents, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, had received an insurance claim for damages due to the flood. The HQ audit revealed that the respondents had availed CENVAT Credit for damaged goods, leading to a demand notice for recovery under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The respondents had reversed duty for some goods but not for others, resulting in a show cause notice for recovery of wrongly taken CENVAT Credit, interest, and penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, interest, and imposed a penalty, which was challenged in appeal. The first appellate authority set aside the order, leading to the current appeal. The Revenue's grievance was that the respondents did not reverse the CENVAT Credit for input services used in manufacturing lost goods or for capital goods destroyed in the flood but claimed from the insurance company. During the hearing, it was noted that the first appellate authority relied on a judgment in the case of Voltamp Transformers Ltd. The Revenue had challenged this judgment in the High Court, but it was dismissed following a Larger Bench decision in the case of Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The Larger Bench also considered the Revenue's appeal in the Voltamp Transformers Ltd. case. The High Court upheld the order in the Voltamp Transformers Ltd. case, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal in the current case. In conclusion, the appeal was rejected based on the High Court's judgment in the Voltamp Transformers Ltd. case, which affirmed the Tribunal's decision. The judgment highlighted the inadmissibility of CENVAT Credit for damaged goods and the importance of following legal precedents in such matters.
|
