Hetero Labs Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 01/2011 dated 25/01/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

Hetero Labs Ltd. Survey No. 10, Gaddapotharm Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak Dist. Andhra Pradesh Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Hyderabad-I Kendriya Shulk Bhavan, L.B Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad  500 004 Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate Quest Com Consultancy Services H. No. 8-2-598/A/7, 1st Floor, Road No. 10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad  500 034 Andhra Pradesh For the Appellant

Mr. N. Jagdish, AR For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 29/05/2015 Date of Decision: 29/05/2015 CORAM:

HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21233 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

The very short issue is involved in the present appeal i.e whether the appellant is liable to reverse the cenvat credit of duty availed on the inputs which were issued for manufacture of the final product but got destroyed in fire, during the course of manufacture of the final product, before reaching the final stage i.e. as work in progress. Revenues stand is that the appellant should have reversed the credit.

2. It is seen that the proceedings initiated against the appellant were originally dropped by the Additional Commissioner but on an appeal by the Revenue, Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the same.

3. The law is no more res integra and identical situation was considered by the Honble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-IV Vs. Fenner India Ltd. [2014 (307) E.L.T. 516 (Mad.)] and it was held that there is no requirement of reversal of cenvat credit in respect of inputs destroyed as contained in work in progress, even after the amendment of the law w.e.f. 07.09.2007, inasmuch as the subject amendment pertains to only inputs as contained in final products, destroyed in fire. In fact I also take note of latest decision of the Tribunal in the case of Glenmark Generics Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-III [2014-TIOL-2507-CESTAT-MUM].

4. Inasmuch as the issue is decided by the above referred decisions, I set aside the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the order of the original adjudicating authority. Appeal is allowed in above terms.

(Order pronounced in open court)

(ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

iss