TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 870
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for remission of duty involved on finished goods as also in respect of inputs lying in their factory. As the appellant had availed Cenvat credit on the inputs and the packing material, remission application was basically for non-reversal of the credit. The Commissioner vide his impugned order passed in de novo proceedings held that provisions of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 do not apply to inputs/raw material/packing material and as such rejected the appellant's request for remission of duty of Rs. 8,13,282/-. The said order of Commissioner is impugned before Tribunal. 3. Ld. Advocate Shri T.R. Rustogi appearing for the appellant have submitted that the Commissioner has mis-directed the issue inasmuch as it was not a case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ein remission of duty in respect of raw material was allowed. Accordingly ld. Advocate submits that impugned order be set aside. 5. Countering the argument, ld. DR appearing for the Revenue submits that Commissioner has rightly rejected the applicant's prayer for remission of duty which they have themselves applied for. Admittedly Rule 21 does not relate to remission of Cenvat credit paid on the inputs which get destroyed before their utilisation. As such he prays for rejecting the appeal. 6. After hearing both the sides, I find that there is no dispute about the fact of destruction of raw material/packing material during flood on 3-8-2004. The Commissioner has already granted remission in respect of the final product destroyed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le only when the inputs are used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. In the present case they cannot even be said to have been used in relation to the manufacture of the final product, or can be said to have been destroyed during the manufacture of the final product, inasmuch as the same were admittedly not even issued for the manufacture. The appellants' reliance upon the Larger Bench decision in the case of Ashoke Iron is not appropriate inasmuch as the decision was given in the different set of facts and circumstances. The inputs were received by the appellants in that case, and were admittedly used in the manufacture of the final product, though no duty was paid on the final product. As such the facts and circumst....