2011 (10) TMI 534

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pondent. ORDER The appellant filed this application for refund of Central Excise Duty of Rs. 1,89,582/- under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 in respect of finished goods destroyed in fire on 26-11-2007. The duty involved on the inputs utilized for the final products came to Rs. 1,01,085/-. The application for refund of Central Excise Duty has been rejected on the ground that the appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is an indication or a requirement that the appellant should not get the Cenvat credit compensated from the insurance company. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Tata Advance Materials v. Commr. of C. Ex., Bangalore-I reported in 2009 (241) E.L.T. 92 (Tri.-Bang.) and M/s. Tulsi Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex. & Customs, Vadodata reported in 2010 (251) E.L.T. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s for manufacture etc. Further the Cenvat credit is available to the appellants, once the raw materials are used. In such a situation, if such Cenvat credit is required to be reversed and if appellant receives compensation from the insurance company, it cannot be said to be unjust enrichment or cannot be said to amount to utilization of the amount for payment of duty of other final products. The l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X