Appellant entitled to Cenvat credit on damaged inputs used in manufacturing process

The appellant was found entitled to Cenvat credit on damaged inputs as they were used in the manufacturing process despite claiming insurance on them. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that there was no suppression of facts or intention to evade duty. The appeal was allowed, and the demands for reversal of credit or payment of duty for the damaged inputs were dismissed.

---

---

Issues involved: Entitlement to Cenvat credit on damaged inputs, invocation of longer period on account of suppression of facts.

Entitlement to Cenvat credit on damaged inputs: The appeal concerned the entitlement of the appellant to Cenvat credit on inputs that were received but subsequently damaged. The department contended that since the appellants claimed insurance on the damaged inputs without using them in the manufacture of final products, they were not entitled to the Cenvat credit. The Revenue invoked the longer period due to alleged suppression of facts.

The learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants were not entitled to the Cenvat credit as the damaged inputs were not used in the manufacture of final products, based on the fact that insurance was claimed for the damaged inputs. However, it was noted that there was no allegation of intention to evade duty by the appellants. The appellants argued that the damaged inputs were actually used along with other inputs for manufacturing final products, contrary to the Revenue's claim. The appellants also cited relevant case laws to support their argument.

Invocation of longer period on account of suppression of facts: The Revenue alleged suppression of facts and intention to evade duty in the show cause notice. The learned SDR supported the impugned order based on these allegations.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the damaged inputs were indeed put to use by the appellants, as evidenced by the exclusion of excise duty elements while claiming insurance. It was concluded that there was no merit in the orders demanding reversal of credit or payment of duty for the damaged inputs. Additionally, it was noted that there was no intention to evade duty, thereby ruling out the invocation of the longer period. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---