TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) - Dated:- 3-5-2011 - Shri Ashok Jindal, J. Appearance Shri B.P. Pereira, JDR for Appellant Shri G.C. Madhom, Advocate for Respondents Per: Ashok Jindal Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the appeal of the respondent was allowed by setting aside the confirmation of duty demand and appropriating the said amount already paid on the ground that CENVAT credit attributable to the inputs contained in the semi-finished and finished goods destroyed in flood was inadmissible and was required to be reversed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that due to heavy floods on 26.07.2005, semi finished goods and finished goods lying in the factory of the respondent have been destroyed. The respondent r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds of appeal taken up in the appeal memo and relied on the decision in the case of Mafatlal Industries vs CCE - 2003 (53) RLT 578/2003 and the Board Circular No. 800/33/2004-CX dated 01.10.2004 and submitted that the impugned order is to be set aside. 5. On the other hand the learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that the impugned order has dealt with the issue in detail and have relied on the Larger Bench decision in the case of Grasim Industries vs. CCE Indore - 2007 (208) ELT 336 (TRI-LB) and Samtel Color Ltd. vs. CCE - 2004 (171) ELT 101 (Tri. Del). Therefore, the issue has attained finality, the impugned order is to be confirmed. 6. Heard and considered. 7. After hearing both the sides, I find the short issue involv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory for use in or relation to the manufacture of excisable goods. They had been issued for manufacture and the goods under process of manufacture had been destroyed. It was held by the CESTAT in Samtel Color Ltd. vs. CCE - 2004 (171) ELT 101 (Tri. Del.) that 'once the inputs had been taken for manufacture of intended goods, it cannot be claimed by the Revenue that the inputs had not been used in the manufacture of excisable goods as the inputs during such manufacture were destroyed 'due to fire'. The credit was held as not deniable even though the inputs were not used in the manufacture due to destruction of goods. In Asian Paints (I) Ltd. vs. CCE - 2004 (173) ELT 187 the CESTAT reiterated that 'once the inputs are issued to the manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
