Poly Paper Convertors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
2. the id. consultant submits that the appeal no. e/2144/05 relates to denial of cenvat credit of rs. 3,69,824.69 on account of raw materials used in the manufacture of final products which has been destroyed by fire. another appeal no. e/2145/05 relates to an amount of rs. 85,961/- on account of duty payable on finished goods destroyed in fire. he submits that the fire has broken down on 6-1-2002 and he has filed remission application but the said remission application was dis-allowed on 10-9-2004. he also submits that the appellants have filed the insurance claim but the same is not yet settled. his contention is that the issue involved is squarely covered in favour of the appellants by the decision in the case of asian paints (i) ltd. wherein the tribunal has inter alia held that "when fire having resulted from an accident beyond control of assessee not disputed, remission of duty under rule 49 of erstwhile central excise rules, 1944 called for as expression "any goods" in said rule cannot be interpreted in a manner as to restrict its scope to "finished goods" only but would encompass, among others, raw materials also" and the appeal was remanded for determination of remission of duty. in a similar case in the case of schenectady specialties asia ltd. , the tribunal has inter alia held that "whether an assessee is required to reverse the credit taken on the capital goods and raw materials when such goods are destroyed in fire. the tribunal has granted stay in the said case. the id. sdr submits that since the appellants have failed to file an appeal against the rejection of remission claim it would not be competent for them to have assailed the demand on any other ground and the order of rejection of remission has become final and it is not open for them to challenge the same by way of an appeal before the tribunal.3. the contention of the id. sdr has force and the case appears to be on legal issue involved. in these circumstances, i dispense with the pre-deposit. the case is fixed for regular hearing on 28-11-2005.

Judgment:
2. The Id. Consultant submits that the Appeal No. E/2144/05 relates to denial of Cenvat credit of Rs. 3,69,824.69 on account of raw materials used in the manufacture of final products which has been destroyed by fire. Another appeal No. E/2145/05 relates to an amount of Rs. 85,961/- on account of duty payable on finished goods destroyed in fire. He submits that the fire has broken down on 6-1-2002 and he has filed remission application but the said remission application was dis-allowed on 10-9-2004. He also submits that the appellants have filed the insurance claim but the same is not yet settled. His contention is that the issue involved is squarely covered in favour of the appellants by the decision in the case of Asian Paints (I) Ltd. wherein the Tribunal has inter alia held that "When fire having resulted from an accident beyond control of assessee not disputed, remission of duty under Rule 49 of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 called for as expression "any goods" in said Rule cannot be interpreted in a manner as to restrict its scope to "finished goods" only but would encompass, among others, raw materials also" and the appeal was remanded for determination of remission of duty. In a similar case in the case of Schenectady Specialties Asia Ltd. , the Tribunal has inter alia held that "whether an assessee is required to reverse the credit taken on the capital goods and raw materials when such goods are destroyed in fire. The Tribunal has granted stay in the said case. The Id. SDR submits that since the appellants have failed to file an appeal against the rejection of remission claim it would not be competent for them to have assailed the demand on any other ground and the order of rejection of remission has become final and it is not open for them to challenge the same by way of an appeal before the Tribunal.

3. The contention of the Id. SDR has force and the case appears to be on legal issue involved. In these circumstances, I dispense with the pre-deposit. The case is fixed for regular hearing on 28-11-2005.