TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods lost in fire accident when appellant has recovered the said amount from the Insurance Company. Adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority has held the refund to be inadmissible as the burden of duty sought as refund has already been passed on to the Insurance Company. The first appellate authority relied upon the case law of Mridul Enterprises [2007 (213) ELT 715 (Tri. Del.)] to hold that CENVAT credit was not to be allowed if the insurance claim has already been granted by the Insurance Company. 3. Shri Anand Mishra (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant relied upon the case law of Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore vs. Tata Advanced M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Poly Foam is with respect to Rule 57-I of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, in the case of CCE, Bangalore vs. Tata Advanced Materials Limited, Hon'ble Karnataka High Court made the following observation:- 6. Therefore, it is clear that there is no provision in the rules which provides for a reversal of the credit by the Excise Authorities except where it has been irregularly taken in which event it stands cancelled or if utilised has to be paid for. This is not the case of the revenue. In the instant case, when the assessee purchased the capital goods and when he has paid the excise duty on them, in law, he is entitled to get the credit on the duty paid while clearing the finished products from his factory. Accordin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by which credit is required to be reversed when payment of duty is ordered to be remitted under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002:- 6. The referring Division Bench also noted that the contention of the assessee that in terms of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, the right of the respondent to avail and retain Cenvat Credit was crystallized the moment the raw material or the input was used in manufacturing of a final product which was neither exempt from duty nor carried nil rate of duty would also require a closer scrutiny. The referring Division Bench further noted the additional contention of the assessee that sub-rule 5(C) of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules having been introduced with effect from 7th September, 2007, the question w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he credit accrued at the moment the raw material or the input was used in manufacturing of a final product which was neither exempt from duty nor carried nil rate of duty. Such being the provision, as it stood in the Cenvat Credit Rules prior to September 7, 2007, there is no scope of application of equitable doctrine against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue on the ground that it will amount to conferring of double benefit. The moment sub-rule (5C) was introduced, the Legislature made its intention clear that from the date of coming into force of the said amended rule, in case of future remission on the ground mentioned in the said sub-rule, there will be reversal of the credit. 17. In this connection, we may profitably refer to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mendment Rules in 1992 and 1994. 35. We have already held that the Amendment Rules of 1992 and 1994 are not clarificatory, but are provisions investing the Port Authorities with the power to levy and collect charges for occupation of government riverine land. Therefore, the demand for charges for use of government riverine land is valid only from 3-3-1994. Therefore the Port Authorities could not demand or recover any amount for the period prior to 3-3-1994. The Port Authorities are therefore liable to refund any amount recovered within three years prior to the date of the writ petition. Obviously, any amount paid during a period beyond three years from the date of the writ petition, is not recoverable as barred by delay and laches. (Empha....