9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raman and T.S. Sivagnanam, JJ. Pet's Adv : M/S.R.KARTHIKEYAN Res's Adv : R3 TRIBUNAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, in Order No. 904/2005, dated 29-6-2005 by which the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai, in Appeal No. 55 of 2004, dated 19-5-2004 and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Central Excise Division, Pondicherry, in Original Order No. 167 of 2000, dated 25-10-2000. 2. The appellant is a manufacturer of paints. On 2-6-1998 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase batches according to their instruction and undertake production to avoid any delay. Therefore, the appellant contended that the raw materials for which they availed input tax credit were in the condition of work-in-progress and pleaded that the same should not foe reversed. The Adjudicating Authority by order dated 25-10-2000, after analysing the entire facts, rejected the stand taken by the appellant and demanded MODVAT credit of ₹ 4,12,198/-. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The Appellate Authority, after taking note of the facts as well as the final report of the investigating officer viz., the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pondicherry, rejected the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... standing counsel for the respondent Department. 4. The appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Asian Paints (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-II [2004 (173) E.L.T. 187 (Tri-Mumbai)] wherein the Tribunal held that inputs which were lost in fire and credit on such inputs for manufacture of final product and loss thereafter are not recoverable under Rule 57-I(1) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. In our view, reliance placed on the said decision is misconceived since it is a question of fact which has to be considered for the purpose of deciding as to whether the appellant is eligible for MODVAT credit which they availed as input credit. In the show cause notice dated 1-1-1999, the appellant was called ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pondicherry, which has been extracted by the First Appellate Authority clearly pointed out that there was no salvage of material after the accident. Therefore, the Original Authority as well as the First Appellate Authority after appreciating the entire facts, held against the appellant. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, being the final fact finding authority, also went into the issue and even before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, the appellant could not establish the case based on materials to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. Therefore, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, after appreciating the materials placed on record, held that it is not the case of the appellant that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
