9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... destroyed on account of power outage leading to disrupting in the pot lines during the process of manufacture. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium and carbon electrodes. 2.1 On 28.09.2008, a flash-over took place in the power transformer at the premises of the appellant and at the same time, grid undervoltage also occurred due to which, all TGs tripped causing station outage at all rectifier stations. Due to such power failure for more than 6 hours, 61 Pot in Line II and III failed causing the bath and molten metal to freeze. This cause huge production loss to the appellant and additional start up and repair and maintenance cost. 2.2 On occurrence of such outage, the appellant lodg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of CE & ST,Rohtak Vs. Park Nonwoven Private Limited : 2015 (323) ELT 634 (Tri.-Del.) ; (e) Secure Meters Limited, Unit I Vs. CCE & ST, Chandigarh I : 2016 (11) TMI 633 - CESTAT Chandigarh. 3.1 The appellants are also stated that part of the inputs whose cenvat credit is denied, were procured after the power outage, therefore, on the said input, cenvat credit cannot be denied. 3.2 It is his submission that the inputs do not qualify as an input as per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was a ground taken only while issuing the impugned order. 3.3 It is also submitted that the extended period of limitation is not invokable. 4. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. Heard both the parties and considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that inputs were actually issued and thereafter destroyed in fire accident has been admitted by the department. 2. On the basis of the afore-mentioned findings as well as clear position of law, we are of the view that no substantive question of law warranting admission of appeal would arise and, therefore, the same is accordingly dismissed." 8. Further, in the case of Indchem Electronics (supra), the Tribunal has observed as under : "5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and gone through the case records. We observe that in this case, the fact of destroying the goods by fire accident is not disputed by the department. The contention of the department is that Rule 49 is not applicable in this case because the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... htly applied the ratio of the following decisions in this case : (a) CCE v. Foods, Fats and Fertilizers Ltd. reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 277 (T) wherein it was held that exemption under Notification No. 118/75-C.E. is admissible when goods removed from place of production and intended for use in the manner specified even though lost due to destruction by fire. (b) Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise reported in 1992 (61) E.L.T. 510 (Collr. App.) wherein it was held that Modvat credit cannot be reversed in respect of inputs actually issued and damaged in fire accident while in manufacturing process, whereas Modvat credit to be reversed only in respect of inputs not issued for manufacture but got damaged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
