9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cenvat Credit taken on capital goods and inputs/raw materials amounting to Rs. 2,83,704/- and Rs. 21,533/- respectively. Both the Revenue as well as the party are in appeal. The party is in appeal against confirmation of duty demand on finished goods and inputs/raw materials. The department is in appeal against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), wherein he has set aside the demand on capital goods relying on the decision of the Tribunal. 2. Heard both sides. The learned advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that confirmation of demand has been made on two grounds viz. no application has been made for remission of duty under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the amount has been collected from the insurance compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants have claimed the amount from insurance company, the claim for remission is not admissible. He also submits that in this case, the raw material/inputs were not contained in the finished product. Therefore, no remission was allowable. He also submits that in respect of capital goods, the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in setting aside the demand. He submits that the decision of the Tribunal in case of Biopac India Corpn. Ltd. v. CCE, Vapi as reported in 2008 (224) E.L.T. 548 (Tri.-Ahmd.) has been appealed against and has not been accepted by the Department. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. In view of the decision of the Tribunal, dated 14-10-86 in case of Shri Dudhganga-Vedganga SSKL & Others cited by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not to deduct the same. Considering this, we have not deducted applicable excise duty from the claim amount. The insurer is requested to allow the same on receipt of excise reversal documents from insured." 5. It is his submission from the above paragraph that the appellant would get reimbursement only if demand of duty is honoured and they have not received the same. Further, the three decisions cited by the learned advocate also support his contention that whether the insurance company reimburses the claim for duty element or not, is not relevant. In the absence of any contrary decision, this issue is covered by the decisions of the Tribunal made earlier. As regards decision of the Tribunal cited by the learned SDR, in that case, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
