Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (7) TMI 529

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... action and stopped the appellant from shifting till the permission is granted by them. Further the lower authority have not referred to any provisions of law requiring prior permissions. When the due intimation stand given by the appellant, the subsequent stand of the revenue they should have removed the goods only after due permission, without any reference to any rule, cannot be appreciated. The revenue was free to check the inventory of the goods, even at the time of filing of intimation. In any case, inasmuch as there are no alleged discrepancies, I do not find it to be a case for fit imposition of penalty on the appellant - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. 2556, 2573/2007-Cus[SM] - FINAL ORDER NO. 50750-50751/2014 - Dated: .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al action under Rule 25 ibid. They had stock transferred 89.100 Kg. of Additive without reversal the credit of ₹ 10,692/- and 6.5 pairs of moulds without reversal the credit of ₹ 89.303/- taken on the same in contravention to Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and are liable for penal action under Rule 15(1) ibid. Moreover, this removal was made vide invoice No. 279 dated 04.12.2004 i.e. before 06.12.2004, the date on which the intimation of shifting of the Bhiwadi unit to Agra on account of merger was given to the department. Thus, they are liable for penal action under Rule 15(1) Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 4. The notice issued to the appellant for contravention of the provisions of Cenvat credit Rule and proposing p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... reasons. (iii) The appellants have not removed any goods from Bhiwadi Unit to Agra Unit clandestinely violating any of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002 with intent to evade payment of duty. Hence, the provisions of rule 25 of Central excise Rules, 2002 are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant matter. (iv) Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 is applicable where the capital goods on which Cenvat Credit has been taken are removed as such or without being use or installed in such a position the amount of duty equivalent to credit availed is to be paid, but in the instant matter, the capital goods were being used in the manufacture of goods which were transferred from Bhiwadi to Agra unit and the same .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s no need to inform the department prior to shifting of units from one place to another place. In this regard, I hold that, if there is no provision of law for obtaining prior permission for shifting the goods to their another unit located out of the jurisdiction, but they should have intimated to the department so that necessary arrangement could have been made for safeguard of the revenue involved in the goods being shifted. 7. I find that the Appellant No. 1 have acted arbitrarily in a whimsical manner and did not allow the department to take stock of goods which were being shifted to their Agra Unit. Under such a situation, the department could not take necessary steps to safeguard the revenue. The department also could not refer the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ous inputs and capital goods were intimated. 9. As such there is no dispute on record that the appellant filed due intimation with the Revenue for removal of the inputs, finished goods, semi-finished goods and capital goods to their Agra Unit. The only grievance of the revenue is that no prior permission was taken by them. It is not understood that when the intimations were being given, why the revenue did not take action and stopped the appellant from shifting till the permission is granted by them. Further the lower authority have not referred to any provisions of law requiring prior permissions. When the due intimation stand given by the appellant, the subsequent stand of the revenue they should have removed the goods only after due p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates