2015 (11) TMI 240

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... etc. and work in progress etc. were destroyed. Fire accident was reported to the jurisdiction Central Excise officer on the very next date. Thereafter, the unit was visited by the jurisdictional Range officer and he conducted survey of goods destroyed. 2. The report was submitted to the Commissioner of Central Excise on 3.3.2010. Thereafter on 27.9.2012, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant for demand of Cenvat credit of Rs. 4,41,949/- and availed on packing material and solvent destroyed in fire and also for demand of duty Rs. 95,43,667/- in respect of certain goods destroyed in fire, which according to the department were finished goods, namely, 7 ACCA, Cefclor, Cephaxil, Axetil, Cefixime Ceffixime Trihydrate, AVNA and Cefa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... regard to duty demand of Rs. 95,43,667/- in respect of alleged destruction of finished products, he pleaded that the goods destroyed were not finished goods but were work-in-progress, which were in the reaction tanks and had not been entered in RG I register; that when the goods were in reaction tanks and were not entered in RG 1 register, same cannot be treated as finished goods; and neither application for remission of duty on the work-in-progress goods was required nor any duty can be demanded in respect of the same. He, therefore, pleaded that they have a good prima facie case in their favour and, therefore, the requirement of pre-deposit of the duty/Cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty may be waived for hearing of the appeal and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of pre-deposit. 6. We have considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. The main duty demand of Rs. 95,43,677/- is in respect of alleged loss in fire of certain finished products. According to the appellant, however, the goods lost were the inputs in process i.e. work-in-progress goods in the reaction tanks and were not finished goods, as after the completion of manufacturing process, they are taken out from the reaction tanks, tested for quality control and are packed and as such, the goods lying in reaction tanks have to be treated as work in progress and not finished goods and therefore, they were not entered in RG I register. Prima facie, we find merit in this plea of the appellant. Moreover, we also find that....