9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,000/- under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. The appellant-company is engaged in the manufacture of Ceramic products falling under Chapter Sub-Heading 6908.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On verification of records, it was found that the appellants had availed remission of duty on damaged finished goods from 1-6-2000 onwards but they did not expunge the Cenvat credit availed on the inputs used in the manufacture of such damaged finished goods. Appellant's contention that they are not required to expunge the same as the provision itself provides for the benefit to be not reversed when the goods are damaged due to the processes show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r appointed by the Insurance Company which is reproduced in the order-in-appeal clearly stated that the goods in the form of assembled and semi-assembled circuit boards and electronics components viz. ICs, Diodes, Contactors relays, etc., totally valued at Rs. 1,46,79,988.96 have been destroyed by fire accident and the damaged PCBs and electronic components do not have any commercial value and are useless. Therefore, the plea of the Revenue that Rule 49 is not applicable cannot be countenanced. The Revenue has also contended that the reliance by the Commissioner (Appeals)' on the CEGAT's decision is not correct as those decisions are not relevant to the facts of the present case since fire accidents were not involved in those case. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia Ltd. reported in 1996 (15) RLT 361 (CEGAT) - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 73 (T) wherein it was held that Modvat credit on broken glass bottles not to be denied in terms of Rule 57D. 6. As we have already observed, in this case, the fact regarding fire accident and goods having been destroyed as a result thereof is not disputed. The department has also not contested the claim of the assessee that the inputs were destroyed after the inputs were actually issued. Further, there was also no allegation that there was any diversion of the goods elsewhere. In view of our discussion above, we are of the considered opinion that the Commissioner (Appeals) has come to a correct conclusion after analysing the evidence on record, that there was no warrant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
