Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 1177 - CESTAT NEW DELHIReversal of cenvat credit - Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Remission of duty - Interest - Held that: - the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CCE vs M. Kumar Udyog (P) Ltd. reported in [2014 (7) TMI 832 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has held that accident of fire due to short circuit is an unavoidable accident, for which the assessee is entitled to remission of duty under Rule 21 ibid. In view of the said judgment, the impugned order denying the benefit of remission on this ground is not justified. The Cenvat Statute nowhere provides that in case of fire accident, the cenvat credit attributable to the said goods has to be reversed. Further, sub-rule (5C) of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Rules calls for reversal of cenvat credit, in the eventuality, where the payment of duty is ordered to be remitted under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, which is not the situation in the present case, in as much as, the remission application filed by the appellant has not been considered by the Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities. Considering the fact that the report submitted by the appellant is not clear, I am of the opinion that the matter should go back to the original authority for consideration of the actual amount settled by the Insurance Company upon verification of the documents submitted/ to be submitted by the appellant - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|