https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328734 The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision regarding central excise duty demand on final products and reversal of credit on inputs and capital goods lost in fire accidents. The Tribunal found that duty demand or credit reversal on capital goods lacked legal basis before the introduction of Rule 5 A of the Cenvat Credit Rules in 2005. It emphasized that duty payment occurs at the time of clearance, and since the destroyed goods were not cleared, there was no duty liability. The judgment aligned with precedents and legal provisions, emphasizing the importance of clearance in determining duty liability for damaged goods. en-us Tue, 24 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Jun 2016 13:06:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328734 The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision regarding central excise duty demand on final products and reversal of credit on inputs and capital goods lost in fire accidents. The Tribunal found that duty demand or credit reversal on capital goods lacked legal basis before the introduction of Rule 5 A of the Cenvat Credit Rules in 2005. It emphasized that duty payment occurs at the time of clearance, and since the destroyed goods were not cleared, there was no duty liability. The judgment aligned with precedents and legal provisions, emphasizing the importance of clearance in determining duty liability for damaged goods. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328734