2022 (6) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty in respect of destruction of Goods, held that the input though issued but not used in the manufacture hence remained as such. Therefore, in respect of destruction thereof the appellant is required to pay the amount of Cenvat Credit. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner, appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Shri Suriyanaraynan, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the subject input though lying as such but the same was issued for production and was admittedly lying on the shop floor. Once the input was issued for production. Even though the same is not used the same is treated as work in progress. Therefore, the goods destroyed in work in progress no demand can be made in respect of Cenva....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng on shop floor but the same was in form of input as such. Therefore, it was contended that the same was not used in the production. Accordingly, the remission was not granted. I find that even though the inputs were not put to use in the production but the input were issued for the production and was in the progress of use in the manufacturer of final product. Once the input has been issued for the production and lying on shop floor. The same should be treated as work in progress. Consequently, the demand of Cenvat Credit cannot be made. In the case of work in progress the specific issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of RSWM Ltd Vs. CCE-2015 (327) ELT 216(Tri.-Del.) (Supra), Wherein following order was passed:- ....