1996 (10) TMI 229

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-VI, New Delhi, rejecting the refund claim of the appellants for Rs. 1,87,347.58, for return of the said amount which was collected by the Department by directing the appellants to debit the Modvat credit on the inputs used by the appellants in their final products which had been destroyed in fire accident, already availed by the appellants and utilised for payment of duty on the final product cleared before the happening of the fire accident in the assembly/manufacturing section of the Appellant's factory. 2. As the facts go the appellants are manufacturers of food processers falling under sub-heading 8509.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and had been operating under the Modvat Scheme under Chapter V, Section, AA of the Cent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... approved premises. In this case the remission of duty has evidently been granted. The point is whether such remission of duty on the fire destroyed finished goods will be covered by the (sic) Modvat Rule 57C. In this connection the appellants rely upon the Tribunal decision the case of Reliance Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 595. In that decision Modvat credit was sought to be denied on inputs used in manufacture of final goods exported under bond without payment of duty invoking Rule 57C. The Tribunal set aside the demand by following the decision of Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Orissa Synthetics v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Order No. A/447/Cal/1994, dated 30-5-1994 and the Bombay Be....