2019 (11) TMI 288 - AT - Central Excise

Rejection of Remission of duty - destruction of final product as also semi finished goods and raw materials - Cenvat credit - inputs lying as such or as contained in the semi finished goods - HELD THAT - Reliance stands placed on the Tribunal s Order in the case of VFC Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (9) TMI 1020 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD by Commissioner (Appeals), which has clearly held that eligibility criteria of using inputs in or in relation to manufacture of Final Product is not satisfied as the inputs were lying in stock and were destroyed before being used and as such he has held that the same require reversal of Cenvat credit. Reference by the appellant to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Arihant Studs Ltd. 2015 (11) TMI 661 - CESTAT NEW DELHI is not appropriate, inasmuch as, the issue in that case was remission of duty in respect of the Final destroyed products. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Issues involved:
1. Remission of duty for destroyed final products and raw materials due to a fire accident.
2. Recovery of Cenvat credit in relation to destroyed final products and inputs lying in stock.
3. Applicability of Cenvat credit on inputs destroyed in fire before being put to use for manufacture.
4. Comparison of decisions in similar cases by different tribunals.
5. Dispute regarding eligibility criteria for Cenvat credit reversal.

Issue 1: Remission of duty for destroyed final products and raw materials due to a fire accident:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Flexible Laminated Rolls and Plastic Articles of Packing, faced a fire accident resulting in the destruction of final products, semi-finished goods, and raw materials. The appellant informed the Central Excise authorities about the extent of destruction and filed a remission application seeking relief.

Issue 2: Recovery of Cenvat credit in relation to destroyed final products and inputs lying in stock:
Show cause notice was issued proposing rejection of remission for destroyed final products and recovery of Cenvat credit for inputs lying in stock. The Original Authority passed an order rejecting remission, confirming Cenvat credit, and imposing a penalty.

Issue 3: Applicability of Cenvat credit on inputs destroyed in fire before being put to use for manufacture:
The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant was entitled to remission of duty for the destroyed final products due to natural causes. However, the Cenvat credit on inputs lying in stock and destroyed in the fire was upheld, as those inputs were not used in the manufacture of final products and were required to be reversed as per relevant case law.

Issue 4: Comparison of decisions in similar cases by different tribunals:
The Commissioner (Appeals) referred to a Tribunal's order in a similar case, emphasizing the need to reverse Cenvat credit for inputs destroyed before being used in manufacturing final products. The appellant's reliance on a different Tribunal decision was deemed inappropriate as it pertained to remission of duty for final destroyed products, not Cenvat credit reversal.

Issue 5: Dispute regarding eligibility criteria for Cenvat credit reversal:
The appellant did not contest that the inputs for which Cenvat credit was confirmed were lying in stock and unused for further manufacture. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the requirement for Cenvat credit reversal based on the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the importance of using inputs in or in relation to the manufacture of final products for credit eligibility.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner's order, leading to the rejection of the appeal. The judgment highlights the significance of utilizing inputs in the manufacturing process to qualify for Cenvat credit and the necessity of reversing such credit for inputs destroyed before being put to use.

← Previous Next →