TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stries Pvt. Ltd. [ 2016 (9) TMI 1020 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD ] by Commissioner (Appeals), which has clearly held that eligibility criteria of using inputs in or in relation to manufacture of Final Product is not satisfied as the inputs were lying in stock and were destroyed before being used and as such he has held that the same require reversal of Cenvat credit. Reference by the appellant to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter 39 of Central Excise Tariff Act. Due to short circuit in their factory, a fire accident took place on 21.08.2014 resulting in destruction of final product as also semi finished goods and raw materials. The said fact was intimated to their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities under the cover of their letter dated 21.08.2014 indicating the extent of distruction. Subsequently, remission appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained in the semi finished goods, he set aside the confirmation of demand to the extent of ₹ 11,85,799/-. However, in respect of the credit of ₹ 13,54,474/- availed on inputs lying in stock and destroyed in fire, he uphold the same by observing as under:- Now, I will examine whether the appellant is required to reverse the Cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 13,54,474/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before being put to use for manufacture, could not be allowed and the same is required to be paid back or reversed by the appellant. In the case of VFC Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE ST, Vadodara-II, [2017 (352) ELT 507- the CESTAT Ahmedabad] vide final order No.A/10952/2016-wzb/ahd dated 21.09.2016 held that the credit taken on inputs lying in stock and destroyed in fire before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the same require reversal of Cenvat credit. Reference by the appellant to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Arihant Studs Ltd. 2016 (332) ELT 827 (Tri.-Delhi) is not appropriate, inasmuch as, the issue in that case was remission of duty in respect of the Final destroyed products. 5. In view of the foregoing, I find no reasons to interfere in the impugned order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
