TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty paid on raw material, semi finished goods and packing material from Unit-I to Unit-II - there is no requirement that a written permission must be obtained from the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise to take credit of duty when the whole unit is merged with the other unit of the same factory. The appellant can take the credit of the said amount instead of seeking refund - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/21957/2014-SM - 22381/2017 - Dated:- 9-6-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri Ganesh, Advocate, For the Appellant Shri Naveen Kushalappa, Jt. Commissioner(AR), For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 28/03/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt on 29/12/2009. They subsequently filed the refund claim on the ground that they are eligible for refund since they had intimated the department about shifting of their premises and that the stock shifted from Bangalore had been duly accounted in their books of accounts. After following the due process of law, the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de their supplementary invoice dt. 29/12/2009. He further submitted that as per Rule 10 of the CCR, 2004, there is no requirement to obtain permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise to take credit of the duty when the whole unit is merged with the other unit of the same factory consequent to the shifting of the factory from one place to other. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raigad [2014(300) ELT 108 (Tri. Mum.)] ii. Shri Guru Containers Vs. CCE, Delhi [2013(298) ELT 639 (Tri. Del.)] iii. CCE, Bangalore-III Vs. Tata Auto Components Systems Ltd. [2013(29) STR 105 (Kar.)] 5. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
