9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee seeks remission of duty, which is not the case in hand. In the case in hand, there was no application filed by the appellant for remission of duty quite rightly so as the goods which were destroyed were semi-finished products or work in process and have not attained the stage of finished goods. Merely because the Insurance Company paid the assessee the value of goods including the excise duty paid, that would not render the availment of the cenvat credit wrong or irregular, assessee has paid the premium and covered the risk of this capital goods and when the goods were destroyed in terms of the insurance policy, the Insurance Company has compensated the assessee - Following decision of Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore Vs. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of Cenvat Credit from the insurance company. 3. Ld. Counsel submits that the show cause notice which was issued to the appellant was invoking the provisions of Rule 3(5C) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 seeking to reverse the Cenvat Credit availed on the inputs which were consumed in the manufacturing of goods which were destroyed even before they could reach the final stage. After reading the provisions of Rule 3(5C) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, he would submit that this rule will not be applicable in the case in hand. As regards the findings recorded by the first appellate authority as to appellant being compensated by the insurance company for the amount of duty liability on the inputs, he would submit that Hon ble High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is liable to be recovered. On perusal of the provisions of Rule 3(5C) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, it is seen that the said rule envisages recovery of duty paid on inputs and availed as Cenvat Credit when as assessee seeks remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In my considered view, the said Rule 3(5C) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, can be invoked as and when the assessee seeks remission of duty, which is not the case in hand. In the case in hand, there was no application filed by the appellant for remission of duty quite rightly so as the goods which were destroyed were semi-finished products or work in process and have not attained the stage of finished goods. 8. This takes me to the second ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not render the availment of the cenvat credit wrong or irregular. At the same time, it does not confer any sight, on the Excise Department to demand reversal of credit or default to pay the said amount. The assessee has paid the premium and covered the risk of this capital goods and when the goods were destroyed in terms of the insurance policy, the Insurance Company has compensated the assessee. It is not a case of double payment as contended by the department. At any rate, the Excise Department has no say in the instant case as held by the Apex Court. In that view of the matter, the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
