9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per Rakesh Kumar: In the appellant's factory, finished goods involving duty of Rs.2,36,518/- were destroyed due to flood on 3.8.2004. On 22.12.2004, the appellant filed an application to the Commissioner for remission of duty in terms of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner, however, insisted on reversal of cenvat credit of Rs.34,324/- in respect of the inputs used in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccident. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri Sadhu Ram, Consultant, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the goods had been destroyed in flood in August, 2008 and remission application dated 22.12.2004 has been filed in December, 2004, that during that period, there was no provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for reversal of cenvat credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting sub-rule (5 C) of Rule 3 in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 w.e.f. 7.9.2007, that this sub-rule cannot be given retrospective effect and that in view of this, the impugned order permitting the remission of duty subject to reversal of input duty credit is not correct and that cenvat credit of Rs.34,325/- already reversed should be ordered to be re-credited. 4. Shri P.K. Sharma, ld. Authorised Repre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation had been made on 22.12.2004. In terms of the law in force at that time in view of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra) for claiming remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules in respect of the finished goods destroyed in any accident, reversal of input duty credit is not required, as the finished goods in respect of which remission of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
