Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 53 - CESTAT HYDERABADCENVAT Credit - transfer of one unit / part of Business - merger of company - transitional credit - Rule 10 of CCR, 2004 - denial of credit on the ground that the transfer of CENVAT credit under Rule 10 of the CCR, 2004 applies only if the entire business gets transferred or shifted - sufficient balance in the account of M/s Global in their ST-3 returns or not as on 31.03.2008 to justify the CENVAT credit availed by the appellant - HELD THAT:- There is nothing in this Rule to indicate that the company will have to transfer entire business and cannot hive off one part of the business and sell it to another company as has been the assertion in the impugned order. In normal course of business, it is often the practice that one may decide to sell one of its businesses to another firm. In such cases, the business which has been sold gets de-merged from the parent company and merges with the buyer company. Rule 10(2) of CCR, 2004 squarely covers such cases also - there are no force in the argument in the show cause notice that the transfer of the benefits under Rule, 10 of the CCR, 2004 would apply only if the entire business is sold and does not apply if the seller company sells only one of this businesses (in this case, the BPO Division). Denial of credit on the ground that there is no sufficient balance in the account of M/s Global in their ST-3 returns or not as on 31.03.2008 to justify the CENVAT credit availed by the appellant - HELD THAT:- The ST-3 returns filed by the appellant disclose the amount of CENVAT credit availed. The returns do not require invoice of the details of the CENVAT credit availed to be provided in order to the copies of the invoices to be submitted along with the returns - the appellant has fulfilled their obligations under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|