9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules is claimed in respect of said goods, Cenvat credit in respect of inputs is not required to be reversed. Also see C.C.E., Ahmedabad II vs. Intas Pharamaceuticals Ltd. [2013 (4) TMI 532 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. Besides this, the fact that the Appellant had received compensation for finished goods lost in fire, from insurance company which included the element of duty on finished goods lost, would also not come in the way of availing cenvat credit in view of judgment Tata Advanced Materials Ltd. (2011 (4) TMI 1124 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) that when in respect of finished goods lost in fire in this case, the input cenvat credit was not required to be reversed, for claiming remission of duty, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty Commissioner vide order dated 1.5.2009. On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), the order of the Deputy Commissioner was upheld vide order in appeal dated 14.6.2011. Since the appellant had also claimed insurance in respect of the finished goods lost in fire and since from the insurance company they received compensation for the finished goods lost in fire which also included the element of duty, they are not challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) order upholding the rejection of refund of cenvat credit. The only challenge in this appeal in respect of the order upholding the rejection of refund claim of the interest amounting to Rs.2,35,373/- on the cenvat credit which according to the appellant had been wrongly reversed. 2. Heard bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required to reverse the cenvat credit in respect of the capital goods lost in fire, that in view of this, when the cenvat credit itself was not required to be reversed for remission of duty, there is no question of payment of interest on the cenvat credit, and that in view of this, the impugned order upholding rejection of refund claim for interest is not sustainable. 4. Shri R.K. Mathur, ld. Departmental Representative for the respondent supported the impugned order reiterating the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. I have considered the submissions made from both sides and perused the record. The fire accident had taken placed on 19.7.2005. It is only with effect from 7.9.2007 that by inserting Rule 3(5C), provision was made in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
