9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the job-workers, they have to be considered as being issued for manufacture and entitled to the cenvat credit. As such the said decision fully covers the situation available in the present case. - an assessee is liable to reverse the cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs, which have been used in the manufacture of the final product and which final product stands destroyed and remission of duty stands granted in respect of the said destroyed final product. However he submits that the said Rule is not applicable to the destruction of the inputs itself, which have not reached the stage of final goods. For the said proposition he relies upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Themis Medicate Ltd. Vs. CCE&S.T, Daman [2014 (2) TMI 208 - C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - (Rupees Nineteen Thousand One Hundred only). The said confirmation of demand and interest by the original adjudicating authority stands confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal. 4. The issue requires to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether the appellant is liable to reverse the credit so availed by him when the inputs were not actually used in the manufacture of the final product and were destroyed in the job-worker's factory. Tribunal in the case of Dishman Pharm. Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2006 (206) E.L.T. 254 (Tri.-Mum.)] has dealt with an identical situation i.e. where the inputs sent to the job-worker's factory were destroyed in fire. The Tribunal relying upon some precedent dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. As against the above decision of the Tribunal, learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
