2013 (5) TMI 245

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Excise Rules, 2002 on 31.6.2005. However, the Department insisted that before claiming remission of duty, they must reverse the cenvat credit amounting to Rs.18,21,174/- involved on the inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods which had been destroyed. Ultimately, the appellant paid an amount of Rs.18,21,174/- plus interest of Rs.2,35,373/-. On this basis, remission of duty of Rs.23,64,289/- claimed by the appellant was allowed by the Commissioner. Subsequently, the appellant on realising that in terms of the Cenvat Credit Rules as the same existed during the period of dispute, they were not required to reverse the credit, they filed an application for refund of the credit along with interest which had been paid by the appellant. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ision of Rule 3(5C) cannot be applied and for this period, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Grasim Industries vs. C.C.E., Indore reported in 2007 (208) ELT 336 (Tri-LB) would be applicable, wherein it has been held that when remission of duty is claimed in respect of finished goods lost in accident/fire, the cenvat credit in respect of the input used in the manufacture of those finished goods lost/accident is not required to be reversed; that in view of Hon'ble Karanataka High Court judgment in the case of C.C.E., Bangalore vs. Tata Advanced Materials Ltd. reported in 2011 (271) ELT 62 (Kar.) when cenvat credit availed capital goods were lost in fire, and the Assessee received payment from insurance company which included the....