TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 320
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Rules, 2002 for remission of duty with the Commissioner of Central Excise for raw materials and semi-finished goods destroyed in the fire. In their remission application, they stated that the entire stock of duty paid raw materials and semi-finished goods lying in the factory premises was worth Rs. 1,44,80,606/-. With reference to the remission application, department informed the appellant to reverse the CENVAT Credit involved in the destroyed inputs and semi finished goods. However, the appellant did not reverse the credit. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued proposing disallowance of CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 20,31,651/- and also consequential penalty under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB. The adjudicating aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 whereas as per Rule 14, recovery should be made only in respect of CENVAT Credit, which was wrongly availed. In the present case, the appellant at the time of receipt of inputs, correctly and legally availed the CENVAT Credit. Therefore, this is not a case of wrong availment of CENVAT Credit. Therefore, recovery under Rule 14 in the facts of the present case cannot be made. 2.1 As regards the proposal of the Revenue for disallowance and recovery of the credit of inputs destroyed and semi-finished goods in the fire, there is no machinery provision for recovery of CENVAT Credit. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Suryalaxmi Cotton Mills....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ENVAT Credit in respect of input is required to be made only when the remission of duty is sought for in respect of finished goods, which is liable for duty. In the present case, the input or semi-finished goods did not reach the stage of finished goods and the input/semi-finished goods destroyed. Therefore, the provision of reversal of CENVAT Credit, which is with reference to Rule 21 in respect of finished goods is not applicable. Moreover there is no machinery provision either under the Cenvat Credit Rules or Central Excise Rules for recovery of CENVAT Credit when input or semi-finished goods destroyed in fire. In the impugned order, the demand was confirmed under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, which is reproduced below: - "Rule 14. R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid circumstances, the same was specifically inserted vide Rule 11(3) w.e.f. 1-3-2007, which cannot be applied retrospectively. The issue is squarely covered by the judgments cited by the learned counsel. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, hence, the same is upheld." In the case of Apco Pharma Ltd. - 2015 (319) ELT 641 (Uttarakhand), Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand passed he following order: - "20. Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court finds that the adjudicating authority had sanctioned the refund claimed by way of credit in their RG23A Part II account. The Court finds that the assessee is availing exemption and is not in a position to utilize the credit and if the assessee is not able to utilize the credit,....