2011 (5) TMI 759 - AT - Central Excise

Goods lost in flood - claim of the remission of duty on finished goods as well as semi-finished goods was denied by the adjudicating authority on the ground that they have not reversed the credit taken on the inputs used in manufacture of finished as well as semi-finished goods Held that - in the case of Grasim Industries (2006 - TMI - 1062 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - Central Excise) holding that the assessee is not required to reverse the credit taken on inputs which has gone in manufacturing of finished goods claim of remission of duty allowed appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
Claim for remission of duty on finished and semi-finished goods denied due to non-reversal of credit on inputs used in manufacturing.

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, suffered losses of finished and semi-finished goods due to a flood in July 2005. They filed a claim for remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim, citing the non-reversal of credit taken on inputs used in the production of the lost goods. The appellant-company's Accounts Officer argued that while they had reversed the credit on finished goods, they had not done so for the inputs used in semi-finished goods, relying on a precedent set by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Grasim Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore. This case established that there was no requirement to reverse the credit on inputs used in manufacturing both finished and semi-finished goods. The presiding member of the Tribunal, Shri Ashok Jindal, noted the narrow scope of the issue and proceeded to decide the appeal, staying the operation of the impugned order.

The central issue in this case was whether the appellant was obligated to reverse the credit taken on inputs utilized in the production of final and work-in-progress goods that were lost in a fire or flood. The Tribunal referred to the precedent set by the Larger Bench in the Grasim Industries case, which concluded that there was no such requirement to reverse the credit on inputs used in manufacturing finished goods. As this issue had already been conclusively addressed and settled, the Tribunal found no merit in the adjudicating authority's decision and set it aside, thereby allowing the appellant's claim for remission of duty. The appeal was allowed, and consequential relief was granted to the appellants. The stay petition was also disposed of accordingly.