9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 916X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant Shri.A.B.Kulgod, Asst. Comm.(AR) for respondent Per: Ramesh Nair 1. The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No.Belapur/48/Bel-I/R-II/Commr/ WLH/2008-09 dated 31/12/2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai whereby the Ld. Commissioner confirmed the recovery of Cenvat Credit in respect of inputs contained in finished goods, semi-finished goods and returned defective goods which was destroyed in fire. In another proceedings, the Commissioner has allowed the remission of duty on the condition of reversal of Cenvat Credit on the inputs contained in the goods destroyed in fire. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. 3. Shri A.B. Kulgod, Asst Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r as the appellants have claimed that during the adjudication of their remission application they were never put to notice as to why said credit amount was required to be paid or reversed by them. The second argument raised relates to deviation from the instruction of CBEC which states that a demand show cause notice needs to be issued before any demand is confirmed. It is seen that a demand show cause notice dt. 16.11.2007 was indeed issued to the appellant seeking reversal of cenvat credit and therefore the argument that no notice was issued is without any substance. It has been argued that department cannot recover any dues without issue of show cause notice. It has also been argued that there are no power to put conditions under Rule 21 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, cannot be equated with exemption to goods and the inputs can be considered to have been put to intended use for manufacture of the final product. Reading of rules under which remission is granted in respect of goods which were lost or destroyed by natural cause or by natural accident, does not provide any condition regarding reversal of credit taken in respect of inputs used on such goods, hence we are unable to support the view taken in the case of Mafatlal Industries (supra) whereby it has been held that assessee has to reverse the credit taken of inputs used in such goods on which remission is granted. Therefore, we approve the view of the Tribunal taken in the case of Inalsa Ltd. (supra) in this regard. The issue to the Larger Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
