9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h a condition that any liability towards excise duties shall be borne by the appellant. The appellant filed an application for transfer of credit lying in their CENVAT credit account attributable to inputs and capital goods, unutilized by them, to Exide. The said credit was denied by the adjudicating authority and the same was confirmed by the first appellate authority. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant is before me. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Rule 57F (20) and the Rule 57S(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, deals with the situation of transfer of CENVAT credit lying in their CENVAT credit account and as per the said Rules, on being change of ownership, the CENVAT credit attributable to inputs, can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Rule 57S(5) and 57F(20) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. For better appreciation the Rule 57F(20) are reproduced herein as under:- "(20) On an application made by a manufacturer of the final products, the Commissioner may, subject to such conditions and limitation as he may impose, permit a manufacturer having credit in his account in Form RG 23A maintained under Rule 57G and lying unutilized on account of shifting of the factory belonging to the manufacturer, to another site, or On account of change in ownership, or Change in the site of a factory resulting from sale, merger, amalgamation or transfer to a joint venture with the specific provision for transfer of liabilities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lying unutilized in their account is on transfer of the factory to Exide on 04.05.1998. The said document has not been appreciated by the lower authorities at all. When there is evidence on record, therefore the observation by the authorities that they have not produced any documents, is not sustainable. 9. Further, I find that in the adjudication order, the adjudicating authority has discussed an order dated 19.2.2002 vide which a demand of Rs.21,888/- along with interest and a penalty of Rs.7,000/- against the appellant was confirmed. The said amount is required to be paid by the appellant and in this regard the appellant has written to the concerned authorities for adjustment of the said amount from the CENVAT credit lying unutilized. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
