TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court in the case of CCE vs. Tata Advanced Materials Ltd., [2011 (4) TMI 1124 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it was held that Merely because the Insurance Company paid the assessee the value of goods including the excise duty paid, that would not render the availment of the cenvat credit wrong or irregular, assessee has paid the premium and covered the risk of this capital goods and when the goods were destroyed in terms of the insurance policy, the Insurance Company has compensated the assessee - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/3749/2010-EX [DB] - 55899/2016 - Dated:- 19-12-2016 - Mr. Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) Sh. B.L. Nersemhan, Ld. Advocate for the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the destruction of capital goods was in an unavoidable accident. Some parts were retrieved and sent for repair to M/s Singh Electricals, Jabalpur, and CENVAT credit was claimed in terms of Rule 4 (5) (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Further, other items like cable and accessories which were totally damaged were cleared as scrap and such clearance of scrap was on payment of duty. The appellants also submitted that the insurance company settled only the value of the goods destroyed and not the duty amount involved. 3. The appellants have been represented by Ld. Advocate, Sh. B.L. Nersemhan and Revenue has been represented by Ld. AR, Sh. Yogesh Agarwal. 4. The ld. Advocate for the appellant based on appeal memorandum and written submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. The ld. AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings given in the impugned order. 6. We heard both the parties and have carefully considered the facts of the case, along with the cited case laws. It appears that the subject matter is squarely covered by the Tribunal s decision in case of Biopac India Corporation Ltd.(supra), which was upheld by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in case of CCE vs. Biopac India Corporation Ltd., 2010 (258) ELT 56(Guj.) . Similarl view was taken by the Tribunal s decision in case of Tata Advance Materials (supra), which was upheld by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE vs. Tata Advanced Materials Ltd., 2011 (271) ELT 62(Kar.) Hon ble Gujarat High Court in case of CCE vs. Biopac India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is entitled to get the credit on the duty paid while clearing the finished products from his factory. Accordingly, he utilized the cenvat credit and cleared the finished products. It is about three years after such payment, the capital goods were destroyed in fire. As the assessee had insured the said capital goods, he put forth a claim for payment of the loss sustained by him, which includes the payment of excise duty. The Insurance Company in terms of the policy has compensated the assessee. Merely because the Insurance Company paid the assessee the value of goods including the excise duty paid, that would not render the availment of the cenvat credit wrong or irregular. At the same time, it does not confer any sight on the Excise Depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
