9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. P-II/BKS/24/2007 dated 28-2-2007. 2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is regarding the demand of the duty from the respondent on the ground that the respondent has not challenged the assessment of the goods, which was lost due to fire accident and remission application was sanctioned by the Commissioner subject to the condition that the respondent reverse the Modvat credit on the inputs. In the absence of such reversal of credit, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand on the finished goods and imposed penalty. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals), on an appeal, has set aside the said impugned order on the fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acture of goods destroyed in fire enforced by the authority is legally correct or not. In the present matter it is not in dispute that the inputs were used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, which has been destroyed in fire. The Commissioner has also granted remission of duty thereon. The present demand has been confirmed because the Cenvat credit taken on the inputs was not reversed. Now the insistence by the department for reversal of Cenvat credit involved on the inputs used for manufacturing of final products destroyed in fire is for the reason that the final products, because of remission of duty, have not suffered duly and as the final products are non-duty paid, Cenvat credit cannot be admissible on the inputs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly followed the Tribunal's decision in the case of Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. v. CCE - 2004 (163) E.L.T.395. 5. The ld. JDR on the other hand submits that there is no challenge of assessment order, which was conditional. It is his submission that the respondent was benefited by the amount of insurance claimed, as was filed by the respondent. The issue regarding the reversal of input credit and the final products destroyed in the fire is identical to the Larger Bench's decision of the Tribunal in the case of Grasim Industries v. CCE, Indore as reported at 2007 (208) E.L.T. 336 (Tri.-LB). Vide the said judgment, the Larger Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
