2018 (3) TMI 247 - AT - Central Excise

Scope of SCN - CENVAT credit - inputs used in work in progress goods damaged/ destroyed in fire, flood etc. - Held that - the issue of admissibility of Cenvat credit on inputs used in work in progress goods damaged/ destroyed in fire, flood etc. is covered by the judgment in the case of VFC industries 2016 (9) TMI 1020 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , where it was held that the credit involved on the inputs lying in stock and destroyed in the fire before being put to use could not be allowed to the Appellant and the same is required to be paid back/reversed. As far as demand relating to credit availed on capital goods, damaged during flood, the same is not removed from the factory premises; also, the insurance company compensated for damage of the said capital goods cannot be a valid ground for reversal of the credit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
Admissibility of Cenvat credit on inputs used in work-in-progress goods damaged in natural calamities.
Validity of enhancing the demand by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on compensation received from Insurance Company.
Reversal of credit availed on capital goods damaged during flood but not removed from factory premises.

Analysis:

Admissibility of Cenvat credit on damaged work-in-progress goods:
The appellant contested the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to enhance the demand for Cenvat credit recovery due to damage caused by a flood in their factory premises. The appellant argued that compensation from the Insurance Company should not affect the availing of Cenvat credit on inputs used in work-in-progress goods. The appellant relied on the precedent set by the Tribunal in the case of VFC Industries (P) Ltd. Vs CCE & ST Vadodara-II and the Karnataka High Court's ruling in Commissioner Vs Tata Advanced Materials Ltd. The Tribunal found that the issue was previously addressed in the mentioned cases, supporting the appellant's contention. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the demand for Cenvat credit recovery on inputs used in the damaged work-in-progress goods.

Validity of enhancing demand based on Insurance compensation:
The appellant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded the scope of the appeal by increasing the demand based on the compensation received from the Insurance Company for the damaged goods. The appellant emphasized that the compensation should not impact the availing of Cenvat credit on inputs used in the manufacturing process. The Tribunal referenced previous judgments, including the case of VFC Industries (P) Ltd. and Parth Packaging Vs CCE - Vapi, to support the appellant's argument. The Tribunal concluded that the Insurance Company's compensation should not be a valid ground for reversing the credit, aligning with the principle established by the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner Vs Tata Advanced Materials Ltd.

Reversal of credit on damaged capital goods:
Regarding the demand for reversing the credit availed on capital goods damaged during the flood but not removed from the factory premises, the Tribunal examined the applicability of the Insurance Company's compensation on the reversal of credit. Citing the Karnataka High Court's ruling in Commissioner Vs Tata Advanced Materials Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that the Insurance Company's compensation does not warrant the reversal of credit. The Tribunal highlighted that the excise duty paid on the capital goods entitled the assessee to Cenvat credit, and the Insurance Company's compensation did not invalidate the credit availed. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, allowing relief as per the law.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised in the case comprehensively, highlighting the legal arguments, precedents cited, and the Tribunal's findings on each issue.

← Previous Next →