Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreA voluntary organisation established on 6th July 1949, BCAS has presently more than 9,000 members from all over the country. BCAS is a principle-centered and learning-oriented organisation promoting quality service and excellence in the profession of Chartered Accountancy.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn More
The respondent bought certain capital goods on payment of excise duty on the same. The duty portion was claimed as CENVAT credit and thereafter, the same was utilised for the discharge of duty liability on goods cleared. Five years thereafter, the goods got destroyed in fire. The respondent purchased new capital goods and put forward claim to the insurance company in terms of the insurance policy subscribed by them. The insurance company reimbursed the cost of goods including the excise duty element on the same. The Revenue directed the assessee to reverse the CENVAT credit on the ground that the assessee had double benefit. The substantial questions of law were
(a) whether the assessee was eligible to claim credit on goods which were claimed to be destroyed in fire and for which the insurance company had compensated equivalent value of goods along with duty, and
(b) whether the Tribunal’s order encouraged unjust enrichment.
Held:
Citing the judgment in case of CCE, Pune v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. reported in (1999) 112 ELT 353 (SC), the Court held that there is no provision in the rules which provides for the reversal of the credit by the Excise Authorities except where it has been irregularly taken. Merely because the insurance company paid the assessee the value of goods including the excise duty paid, that would not render the availment of the CENVAT credit wrong or irregular. The appeal of the Department was dismissed.