9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai, in Appeal No. 55 of 2004, dated 19-5-2004 and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Central Excise Division, Pondicherry, in Original Order No. 167 of 2000, dated 25-10-2000. 2. The appellant is a manufacturer of paints. On 2-6-1998 at about 08.30 p.m., a fire accident took place in the factory premises in which the entire stock of finished goods, raw materials and in-process materials were completely damaged and fire was also brought down the RCC building in which the factory was housed. The Department was informed of the accident on the very next day i.e. 3-6-1998. The appellant claimed that they are a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and taken by the appellant and demanded MODVAT credit of Rs. 4,12,198/-. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The Appellate Authority, after taking note of the facts as well as the final report of the investigating officer viz., the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pondicherry, rejected the appeal holding that no reports were available for salvage of materials and inputs were destroyed prior to utilization in the process of manufacture. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal once again re-appreciated the facts which were considered by the Orig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rable under Rule 57-I(1) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. In our view, reliance placed on the said decision is misconceived since it is a question of fact which has to be considered for the purpose of deciding as to whether the appellant is eligible for MODVAT credit which they availed as input credit. In the show cause notice dated 1-1-1999, the appellant was called upon to explain as to why the MODVAT credit taken on the inputs should not be disallowed as the inputs were not used for manufacturing. The appellant would contend that the process of manufacturing is an un-interrupted process and raw materials were received in batches and it should be taken that it is a case of work-in-progress and therefore, MODVAT credit should n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding authority, also went into the issue and even before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, the appellant could not establish the case based on materials to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. Therefore, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, after appreciating the materials placed on record, held that it is not the case of the appellant that the process of manufacture was complete before the fire struck the factory and inputs in stock and inputs under progress were both destroyed in fire and no finished product resulted from the process in which the subject inputs were utilised. Therefore, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, concluded that it cannot be held that the inputs in ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
