2008 (11) TMI 227 - AT - Central Excise

Capital Goods Cenvat / Modvat capital goods destroyed in fire accident - The appellants purchased Capital Machinery in 1998 and availed Cenvat credit on the said Capital Goods. They were put to use in manufacturing the final products. However, in 2003, a fire accident occurred and the goods were destroyed. They were cleared as scrap without payment of duty. Insurance was also claimed. - Revenue proceeded against the appellants for the reversal of the Cenvat credit taken on the Capital Goods. held that - The goods were destroyed in 2003 due to a fire accident. There is no legal provision for demanding the Cenvat credit taken on the said goods during the relevant period. The fact that the appellants claimed insurance, which is inclusive of Excise Duty, is not at all relevant. demand set aside.

Summary

Issues:
- Reversal of Cenvat credit on Capital Goods destroyed in a fire accident.
- Claiming insurance and availing Cenvat credit leading to double benefit.
- Applicability of relevant case laws and Cenvat Credit Rules.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Reversal of Cenvat credit on Capital Goods destroyed in a fire accident
The appellants had purchased Capital Machinery in 1998 and availed Cenvat credit on these goods. Following a fire accident in 2003, the goods were destroyed and cleared as scrap without payment of duty. The Revenue demanded reversal of the Cenvat credit, which was confirmed by the Original Authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Tribunal found that the goods had been put to use from 1998 to 2003, and the appellants had legally availed the Cenvat credit during this period. The Tribunal noted that there was no legal provision for demanding the reversal of Cenvat credit on the destroyed goods, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

Issue 2: Claiming insurance and availing Cenvat credit leading to double benefit
The Revenue argued that by claiming insurance, which included Excise Duty on the machinery, the appellants were obtaining a double benefit when they also availed the Cenvat credit. However, the Tribunal held that the fact that the appellants claimed insurance, inclusive of Excise Duty, was irrelevant in the context of Cenvat credit availed on the Capital Goods. The Tribunal relied on relevant case laws, including Biopac India Corpn. Ltd. and Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., to support its decision that the Cenvat credit was admissible in such circumstances. The Tribunal emphasized that the issue was adequately covered by the cited case laws and found no merit in the Revenue's argument regarding double benefit.

Issue 3: Applicability of relevant case laws and Cenvat Credit Rules
The Tribunal considered the case laws cited by the appellant's advocate, which highlighted instances where Cenvat credit on destroyed Capital Goods was deemed admissible. The Tribunal also referenced the Cenvat Credit Rules in effect during the relevant period, noting that there was no requirement to reverse the Cenvat credit even when used Capital Goods were removed. The Tribunal pointed out that a subsequent notification issued in 2007 addressed the reversal of credit for the removal of old and used Capital Goods, further supporting the decision to allow the appeal based on the circumstances and legal provisions applicable at the time.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised, the arguments presented by both parties, and the legal reasoning behind the Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.