Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Case Laws
 
Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Tri Central Excise + Tri
← Previous Next →
TMI ID= 265604
  • Contents
  • Cases Cited

2015 (10) TMI 879 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III

Denial of transfer of Cenvat Credit unutilized lying in the account of M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. which was merged with Maruti Suzuki Udyog Ltd. - Held that:- As there is no ban on availment of Cenvat Credit of one unit if input service pertains to both the units prior to 2012, therefore, we follow the decision of Doshion Ltd. [2012 (10) TMI 952 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] and hold that appellant is not required to reverse Cenvat Credit on ₹ 56,41,18,612/-. We further find that Cenvat Credit of ₹ 8,57,44,621/- is also denied on account of merger of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. with Maruti Udyog Ltd. Since, both the units have been merged, therefore, appellant is entitled to transfer Cenvat Credit lying unutilized in the Cenvat Credit account of the unit merged with the main unit. Therefore, appellant is entitled to take Cenvat Credit to the extent of ₹ 8,57,44,621/- in terms of Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. - No merit in impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.

No.- Application No. E/Misc/56288/2014, Appeal No. E/57560/2013-EX(DB)

Dated.- July 30, 2015

Citations:

  1. M/s. Doshion Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad - 2012 (10) TMI 952 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Ashok Jindal, Member (J) And B Ravichandran, Member (T)

For the Appellant : Shri B L Narsimhan, Adv

For the Respondent : Shri Pramod Kumar, DR

ORDER

Per Ashok Jindal

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order for denial of Cenvat Credit availed by them on common input services received pertaining to their Gurgaon and Manesar unit together. The appellant is also challenging the denial of transfer of Cenvat Credit unutilized lying in the account of M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. which was merged with Maruti Suzuki Udyog Ltd.

2. The facts in the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of motor vehicle and parts thereon. The appellant is having two units. One is located at Gurgaon other at Manesar. Appellant availed certain input services which are common for both the units as the invoices were used in the name of Gurgaon unit. Therefore, appellant availed entire Cenvat Credit on these services in their Gurgaon unit. The Revenue objected to that on the ground that as certain input services pertains to Manesar unit, therefore, they are not entitled to take entire Cenvat Credit on these common input services. The Revenue also sought to deny Cenvat Credit to Gurgaon unit on the ground that the capital goods were not being transferred to Gurgaon unit on merger of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. with Maruti Udyog Ltd. On these set of facts a show cause notice was issued to deny Cenvat Credit and later on matter was adjudicated by confirming demand on account of denial of Cenvat Credit on both the grounds along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed. Against the said order appellant is before us.

3. Heard the parties.

4. Considering the fact that the issue on account of availment of Cenvat Credit on common input services by one unit has been settled by this Tribunal in the case of Doshion Ltd. Vs. CCE Ahmedabad-2013 (288) ELT 291 (Tri-Amd) wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:

"We have considered the submissions made by both sides. We find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel. The registered office and Vatva office both are located in the same place and appellant has simply utilized the credit at Vatva instead of distributing it to various units. As submitted by the ld. Counsel during the relevant period, there was no restriction for utilization of such credit without allocating proportionately to various units. The omission to take registration as an Input Service Distributor can at best be considered as procedural irregularity and in view of the decisions cited, has to be considered sympathetically. Further, it is also noticed that appellant has not got any extra benefit by doing this."

5. As there is no ban on availment of Cenvat Credit of one unit if input service pertains to both the units prior to 2012, therefore, we follow the decision of Doshion Ltd. and hold that appellant is not required to reverse Cenvat Credit on ₹ 56,41,18,612/-. We further find that Cenvat Credit of ₹ 8,57,44,621/- is also denied on account of merger of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. with Maruti Udyog Ltd. Since, both the units have been merged, therefore, appellant is entitled to transfer Cenvat Credit lying unutilized in the Cenvat Credit account of the unit merged with the main unit. Therefore, appellant is entitled to take Cenvat Credit to the extent of ₹ 8,57,44,621/- in terms of Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.

6. With these terms, we do not find any merit in the impugned order. Same is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.

( Dictated and pronounced in the open court )

 
 
← Previous Next →
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version