COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. TULSYAN NEC LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVENUE is before us in this appeal. A fire accident has occurred in the factory premises of m/s. Tulsyan NEC Ltd. , Doddaballapur. Several inputs were destroyed. It was stated that the respondent irregularly availed CENVAT credit on certain inputs, which were not received back from job work, the actual CENVAT credit attributable were not correctly arrived at and thereafter not adjusted the differential amount. It was further stated that irregularly, the respondent availed CENVAT credit of Rs. 4,02,497/- on inputs and not fully accounted for as having been disposed off in the manner specified in the said rules. It was stated that an application was filed before the Insurance authority seeking settlement of claim in the matter. A show cause notice was issued demanding duty and also imposing penalty under Rule 173q of the central Excise Rules. It was also stated that the assessee was liable to reverse the credit availed under Rule 57f (11) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The said Show Cause notice was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise in terms of an order. Appeal was filed before the Commissioner. The Commissioner set aside the penalty and advised the assessee to approach the Tribunal with regard to the rejection of the application requesting for remission of duty. Thereafter, the assessee approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the case of the assessee. It is in these circumstances, the Revenue is before us.

(2.) THE following questions of law are raised by the Revenue:

(3.) HEARD Sri. Yateesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue. He says that the tribunal has committed a serious error in allowing the order despite the Judgment of the tribunal in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. , v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs in 2003 (154 )ELT543 (Tri-Mumbai ). After hearing, we have carefully perused the material placed on record.