2011 (7) TMI 612 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remands case on excise duty dispute, emphasizing need for re-examination

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, remanding the case to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I for reconsideration within three months. The Tribunal ... Cenvat credit - claim for remission of duty under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on inputs credit availed by them or inputs in working process and finished goods lost in fire on 18/19.4.2000 - Revenue imposed demand of duty along-with interest - Held that:- It is observed that while considering the claim by the insurance company, loss of stock was considered without considering the excise duty part. Therefore, the observation of the Commissioner that the appellants have received the duty part from the insurance company is not correct. Matter sent back to the Commissioner to re-consider the submissions of the appellants and pass appropriate orders. Issues:Appeal against confirmation of demand of duty on reversal of input credit due to goods lost in fire. Disallowance of remission claim under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Interpretation of insurance claim settlement regarding excise duty part. Application of Tribunal decisions in similar cases.Analysis:The appellants contested an order confirming duty demand and reversal of input credit due to goods lost in fire, subsequently filing a remission claim under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, which was disallowed. The adjudicating authority relied on a previous Tribunal decision involving a different company. The appellants argued that the insurance claim did not cover the excise duty part, citing a surveyor's report. They also highlighted a subsequent Tribunal decision that overruled the one relied upon by the authority, asserting that the impugned order should be set aside.The Revenue contended that without the surveyor's report, it was assumed that the insurance claim included the excise duty part, thus negating the remission claim. The Tribunal considered both sides' arguments and found that the insurance claim settlement did not include the excise duty part, contrary to the adjudicating authority's observation. Additionally, the Tribunal noted the reliance on an outdated Tribunal decision, which had been overturned by a newer decision. Consequently, the matter was deemed to require re-examination by the adjudicating authority in light of the latest judicial pronouncements. The Tribunal remanded the case to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I for reconsideration and directed a fresh decision within three months, allowing the appeal in this regard.