TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. On hearing both sides on the Stay application, it appeared that on a short point the appeal itself could be decided. This was done by granting waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 20,03,716.85, confirmed as duty and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on the appellants. 2. We have heard Shri J.C. Patel for the appellants and Shri J.M. Jeorge for the Revenue. 3. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to the equivalent register of the consolidated unit. 4. Two show cause notices were issued seeking denial of the credit so transferred on the ground that the transfer had been made without following the provisions of Rule 57F(7) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Assistant Commissioner in his common order confirmed duty as mentioned above. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The relevant sub-rule is extracted below : On an application made by a manufacturer, the Commissioner of Central Excise may, subject to such conditions and limitations as he may impose, permit a manufacturer having credit in his account in Form RG-23A maintained under Rule 57G and lying unutilised on account of change in ownership or change in the site of a factory resulting from sale, merger, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is changed or factory is relocated. The situation in the present appeal is different. The manufacturer continues to be the same. There is neither change in the ownership nor in the site of factory. All that happened was the merger of the registration certificate and not of the units. 8. In this situation we find that the sub-rule does not come into play at all. The proceedings instituted under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
