TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (10) TMI 364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eceived by them in the years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively, on the ground that these were the claims received from the insurance company in respect of input and capital goods damaged/destroyed and the appellants had taken CENVAT Credit on such inputs/capital goods, proceedings were initiated for demanding duty. In the impugned order, the ld.Commissioner upheld the demand of duty in respect of refund of excess premium paid and received back by the appellant, claim amount received by the appellant in respect of capital goods destroyed in the factory premises and the appellants are in appeal against the decision, whereby the demand for duty has been confirmed by invoking extended period and further penalty has also been imposed. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... copies of purchase invoices were not submitted, a view has been taken that the appellant had claimed excess duty paid on the capital goods. In respect of another claim of capital goods for breakdown of FDY Winder, the Commissioner confirmed the demand on the ground that the appellants submitted claim sanction letter, but failed to submit copies of claim and copies of purchase invoices of the goods. Thus, it can be seen that in both the cases, the duty has been demanded on the insurance claim received by the appellant on the presumption that the claim related to damaged/destruction of capital goods not supported by any evidence and the claim of the appellant that the insurance claim was made because of the breakdown of the machinery, has be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd Vs. CC Mangalore 2006 (201) ELT 18 (Tri-Bang), it was held that the fact that the goods were insured, does not dis-entitle the appellant from claiming refund of duty and interest paid thereon since both aspects are governed by different laws. This was countered by ld.A.R. stating that the ratio of these decisions is not applicable to the facts of the case since the facts in both those cases are different. 6. I find that one of the ratios that emerges from the order is that there cannot be a demand for duty in absence of removal/destruction. In this case, as already observed, there is no evidence to show that the capital goods have been destroyed or removed. When the capital goods have not been destroyed/remove....