9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C Khole, Dy. Commissioner (AR) Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeals against the denial of credit of Rs. 55,26,242/- vide impugned order No. RJB/M-III/226-227/2003 dated 18.6.2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai-III. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods. On 10.09.2000, at about 7.30 AM a fire accident took place in their Bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acturing process but denied credit on the ground that as the appellant has claimed insurance for the loss of inputs/in-process material/capital goods from the Insurance Company, therefore, credit cannot be allowed. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who in turn denied CENVAT credit by relying on the decision of Monica Electronics vs. CCE-1995 (75) ELT 440 (T). Aggrieve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any certifying that the Insurance Company has not considered the claim of the modvat/CENVAT credit of duty paid while entertaining their claim for damaged capital/input/work in-process was produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the appellant. Therefore, the credit cannot be denied. The decision of the Monica Electronics (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. 5. On the other h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the facts of the case of Monica Electronics (supra) , inputs were damaged prior to issuance for manufacture. It means that 'inputs' were not gone into manufacturing process, therefore, credit is inadmissible but in this case, it is not in dispute that 'inputs' have gone in the process of manufacturing and capital goods were also in use therefore, credit cannot be denied. In the case of CCE vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
