9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 842X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant. Sri R.K.Chaudhari argued that First Appellate Authority has rejected their appeal relying upon the case law of Mafatlal Industries Ltd.-vs.- Commr. Of C.Ex. & Customs, Ahmedabad[2003(154) E.L.T. 543 (Tri.-Mumbai) under which it is held that when central excise duty on the final product is remitted then cenvat credit with respect to inputs contained in destroyed goods is required to be reversed. Ld. Advocate relied upon the larger bench case law of Grasim Industries vs.-Commr. Of Central Excise, Indore[2007(208) E.L.T. 336(Tri.-LB)] and argued that as per this case law reversal of cenvat credit of input used in the manufacture of finished goods, destroyed in fire, is not required to be reversed. Ld. Advocate made the bench go th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the case law of Mafatlal Industries Ltd.-vs.- Commr. Of C.Ex. & Customs, Ahmedabad (Supra). However, CESTAT larger bench at Delhi, in the case of Grasim Industries vs.-Commr. Of Central Excise, Indore (Supra), held as follows under paragraph-7: "7. We find that reading of Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 which provides for remission of duty in respect of goods lost or destroyed by natural cause or by unavoidable accidents or in case goods become unfit for consumption or for marketing at any time before removal does not provide reversal of credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of such goods. The Modvat rules prohibits the credit of duty paid in respect of the inputs which are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 13.03.2002 passed by the Commr. Central Excise, Kol-III regarding reversal of credit. It is observed that as a result of order dated 13.03.2002 passed by the Commr. Of Central Excise, Kol-III a demand under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was issued by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Khardah-I Division, Kolkata. There is no mention in the show cause notice as to when cenvat credit with respect to inputs was taken by the appellant. Appellant has taken in their grounds of appeal, as per ground XVI(e), and that demand raised in show cause notice dated 04.04.2005 is beyond the period of one year, is time barred. The contention raised by the appellant is correct and is acceptable. 8. In view of the above observ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
