9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... destroyed in fire or they should reverse the modvat credit taken by them or the same is inadmissible in terms of Rule 57A ? (ii) Whether the inputs lost due to fire cannot be covered under Rule 57D though they were not used in relation to final products and no dutiable product emerged therefrom ? (iii) Whether the provisions of Rule 57A which envisages the utilization of inputs in the manufacture of finished goods is fulfilled by the Assessee / Respondent ? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of Commissioner of Central Excise (A) which set aside penalty U/ sec.173Q on the ground that Rule 571(4) provides that penalty could be arrived at only if the ingredients therein are satisfied ? 2. The facts necessary to ans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals). On 30th April, 2002 / 10th December, 2002, this appeal came to be allowed insofar as the questions of law termed as substantial and reproduced hereinabove. 6. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal aggrieved by the findings and to this extent. That appeal has been dismissed by the Tribunal . 7. Mr. Mishra appearing on behalf of the Revenue in support of this appeal invites our attention to Rule 57A as prevailing at the relevant time to submit that the intent was not to allow any credit to be availed of on the duty paid on the inputs unless there is a final product which is manufactured. The words "goods used in or in relation to the manufacture of the said final products" read in their entirety would mean that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i III vs. Indchem Electronics. The appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court from this Tribunal decision has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 4th April ,. 2003. 9. We have, with the assistance of the learned advocates, perused the appeal memo and all annexures thereto. From the records we have perused the original Tribunal order. Though the Tribunal order briefly indicates as to why it did not agree with the Revenue, we find that its view can be supported on a plain reading of Rule 57-A, sub-rule (1). That Rule, to the extent relevant, reads as under: "(1) The provisions of this section shall apply to such finished excisable goods (hereinafter referred to as the "final products") as the Central Government may, by notification in the O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal products" would not have appeared in sub-rule (1) of Rule 57A . Their plain meaning enables us to agree with the Tribunal that the intent of the rule makers was not to disallow credit merely because a contingency over which the assessee had no control takes place. In the present case, none could have predicted a fire occurring in the manufacturing plant of the assessee . That the fire occurred and at the relevant time but the goods were already utilized in the process of manufacturing of the final product, then the credit paid on those goods was admissible. There is no dispute about these facts, including the fire. In the circumstances, the Tribunal took the view that the language of the Rule does not permit it to agree with the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
