TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n question are not excisable goods, therefore, provisions of Section 11D (1 A) are not applicable to the facts of this present case - demand not sustainable. The insurance company has given the claim as per the agreement between the appellant for replacement of capital goods lost in fire, which includes excise duty element. If appellant is purchasing capital goods they were required to pay excise duty thereon. Therefore, there is no double benefit as availed by the appellant. In that circumstance, the impugned order has no merits. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/53613/2014-[DB] - A/57029/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 3-10-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The matter was adjudicated. The Adjudicating authority hold that as the appellant initially taken refund of the duty paid on the capital goods and again received the amount of excise duty from the insurance company. Therefore, they have taken double benefit of duty paid on capital goods which is not available to the appellant and confirmed the demand of amount on account of excise duty paid by the insurance company under Section 11 D (1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Aggrieved with the said order, the appellant is before us. 4. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the facts of the case are not in dispute as the appellant obtained the capital goods against the EPCG license and took the refund of Terminal Excise duty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d double benefit and whatever duty received from insurance company, provisions of Section 11 D (1 A) are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. 6. Heard the parties and considered submissions. In this case, facts are not in dispute as the appellant against EPCG licence had procured capital goods domestically on payment of duty and have availed refund of terminal excise duty paid thereon. It is also fact on record that appellant has discharged their export obligation, in terms of EPCG licenses granted to them. The only dispute is that the appellant has received certain amount on account of excise duty on the capital goods lost in fire on 03.05.2008 and the duty has been demanded by invoking provisions of Section 11D (1A) of Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these excisable goods and in terms of EPCG Licenses issued to them they availed refund of terminal excise duty paid by them on these capital goods and discharge has been given to the appellant while discharging their export obligation of refund of terminal excise duty paid by them. We, further take note of the fact that insurance company has given the claim as per the agreement between the appellant for replacement of capital goods lost in fire, which includes excise duty element. If appellant is purchasing capital goods they were required to pay excise duty thereon. Therefore, there is no double benefit as availed by the appellant. In that circumstance, the impugned order has no merits. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. 9. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
