9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issible and was required to be reversed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that due to heavy floods on 26.07.2005, semi finished goods and finished goods lying in the factory of the respondent have been destroyed. The respondent reversed the CENVAT credit attributable to the inputs contained in semi-finished and finished goods and applied for remission of the duty on the destroyed goods.Thereafter, the respondent requested for permission to re-credit the amount reversed, which was rejected. It was further contended that the inputs had been issued for the manufacture and has also undergone process of manufacture. The use of inputs in relation to manufacture of final product is sufficient for claiming the credit. The claim was rejected whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mtel Color Ltd. vs. CCE - 2004 (171) ELT 101 (Tri. Del). Therefore, the issue has attained finality, the impugned order is to be confirmed. 6. Heard and considered. 7. After hearing both the sides, I find the short issue involved in this case is that whether the credit availed on input contained in semi finished goods and finished goods which were lost in flood is required to be reversed or paid back. In the case of Grasim Industries (supra) while answering the issue the Larger Bench of this Tribunal has held that destruction of goods due to natural cause or by unavoidable accident during handling or storage cannot be equated with exemption to goods and the inputs can be considered to have been put to intended us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oyed 'due to fire'. The credit was held as not deniable even though the inputs were not used in the manufacture due to destruction of goods. In Asian Paints (I) Ltd. vs. CCE - 2004 (173) ELT 187 the CESTAT reiterated that 'once the inputs are issued to the manufacturing floor from the stores after receipt in the factory, further utilisation of the same cannot be normally questioned. They can be lost due to normal process of a technological loss, reversals are therefore not called for.' Following the ratio of aforesaid CESTAT orders the demand of Rs.1,08,240/- cannot be sustained and has to be set aside." 8. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
