2003 (4) TMI 191

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5.00 (Rupees two lakh fifty-two thousand one hundred and fifty five) has been confirmed in respect of those inputs which were used by the appellants in the manufacture of the final products, but the final products were not cleared and got destroyed by fire. 2. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, learned Consultant for the appellants submits that the final products which were destroyed by fire, are the goods in respect of which the remission of duty is available under the provisions of Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. As such, there was no justification for the Commissioner to direct for reversal of the Modvat Credit in respect of the inputs contained in such final products. For the above proposition, he relies upon the Tribunal's decision in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hri Chattopadhyay ld. consultant submits that following the ratio of the decision, credit availed by them in respect of the inputs destroyed in the fire is not required to be reversed. 4. Shri Chattopadhyay also submits that under the Modvat provision, inputs can be removed as final product, as if the same has been manufactured by the assessee. If the same is allowed to be cleared as final product, the same gets the status of the final product and the provisions of Rule 49 would become applicable. As such, he submits that the destruction of the inputs would become at par with the destruction of the final product, as the provision for remission of duty would be available. 5. We have also heard Shri T.K. Kar, ld. SDR appearing for the R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the final product, inasmuch as the same were admittedly not even issued for the manufacture. The appellants' reliance upon the larger Bench decision in the case of Ashoke Iron is not appropriate inasmuch as the decision was given in the different set of facts and circumstances. The inputs were received by the appellants in that case, and were admittedly used in the manufacture of the final product, though no duty was paid on the final product. As such the facts and circumstances of that decision are distinguishable from the facts of the instant case inasmuch as in the present matter after receiving the inputs the same were destroyed by fire. 8. We also do not find any merits in the appellants' contention that such inputs have to be tr....