2016 (8) TMI 842

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... B.N.Pal (Advocate) appeared on behalf of the appellant. Sri R.K.Chaudhari argued that First Appellate Authority has rejected their appeal relying upon the case law of Mafatlal Industries Ltd.-vs.- Commr. Of C.Ex. & Customs, Ahmedabad[2003(154) E.L.T. 543 (Tri.-Mumbai) under which it is held that when central excise duty on the final product is remitted then cenvat credit with respect to inputs contained in destroyed goods is required to be reversed. Ld. Advocate relied upon the larger bench case law of Grasim Industries vs.-Commr. Of Central Excise, Indore[2007(208) E.L.T. 336(Tri.-LB)] and argued that as per this case law reversal of cenvat credit of input used in the manufacture of finished goods, destroyed in fire, is not required to be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellant. First Appellate Authority has relied upon the case law of Mafatlal Industries Ltd.-vs.- Commr. Of C.Ex. & Customs, Ahmedabad (Supra). However, CESTAT larger bench at Delhi, in the case of Grasim Industries vs.-Commr. Of Central Excise, Indore (Supra), held as follows under paragraph-7: "7. We find that reading of Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 which provides for remission of duty in respect of goods lost or destroyed by natural cause or by unavoidable accidents or in case goods become unfit for consumption or for marketing at any time before removal does not provide reversal of credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of such goods. The Modvat rules prohibits ....