Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 332 - CESTAT KOLKATACENVAT Credit - transfer of ownership / sale to another without removal of capital goods goods - contravention of Rules 3(5B),2(a)(A) and 3(5) of the Central Credit Rules, 2004 - another unit / purchaser is situated within the same premises - Held that:- once the ownership and control of the equipments, machineries are transferred to another legal entity, even if it is situated in the same factory premises, it would be construed as removal within the meaning of Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules,2004 and CENVAT Credit on the capital goods availed by the transferor is liable to be recovered. - Decision in the case of Associated Cement’s [2007 (12) TMI 210 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] followed. However, it is difficult to hold at this stage, without ascertaining the disputed facts that after sale of the capital equipments, machinery etc. by the Appellant to M/s. JKETL, the control has also been divested in favour of M/s. JKETL on the face of a stiff argument in this regard by the Ld. Adv. for the Appellant. It is not is dispute that the Appellant have all along been claiming that they are the de facto manufacturer of the Lime from the Lime sludge. We observe that there is no detailed finding recorded on this aspect by the Ld. Commissioner. Also, there is a dispute about transfer/use of the land in favour of the Appellant - matter remanded back for ascertaining the facts and to apply the ratio of Associated Cements case - however penalty set aside - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|