Gujarat High Court
The Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... vs Sabero Organics Gujarat ... on 16 February, 2015
Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai, R.P.Dholaria
O/TAXAP/492/2008 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 492 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR
SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order
made thereunder ?
================================================================
THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS....Appellant(s)
Versus
SABERO ORGANICS GUJARAT LTD.....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR GAURANG H BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VIJAY NAIR, ADVOCATE FOR MR DEVANG NANAVATI, ADVOCATE for
the Opponent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Page 1 of 3
O/TAXAP/492/2008 JUDGMENT
Date : 16/02/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI)
1. We have heard Mr.Gaurang H.Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Vijay Nair, learned counsel for Mr.Devang Nanavati, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. While admitting this appeal on 16.04.2009, the Court had formulated the following substantial questions of law:
"(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that no reversal of cenvat credit itself was required for claiming remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Cenvat Excise Rules, 2002 in respect of the 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?
(2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in law in holding that no reversal of modvat credit was required despite CBEC's Circular dated 1.10.2004?
(3) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in law in holding that repeated occurrences of fire on account of lack of installation of fire safety Page 2 of 3 O/TAXAP/492/2008 JUDGMENT measures or deployment thereof could be termed to be unavoidable event so as to confer benefit of consideration of an application for remission under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002?"
3. So far as the first question is concerned, the Full Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Ahmedabad-II Vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, reported in 2013(289) E.L.T.256 (Guj.) has held regarding remission of duty on destruction of final product and credit taken on inputs used in manufacture of such final product. The remission application was filed on 3.10.2005, whereas Rule 3(5-C) came into force on or after 7.9.2007. Therefore, benefit was available to the respondent assessee to claim the benefit of Cenvat Credit as the goods were destrobed in fire. We propose to answer all the three questions together as they are interconnected. Therefore, we answer all the three questions in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed.
(V.M.SAHAI, ACJ.) (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) pathan Page 3 of 3