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

2015 (6) TMI 693

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the buyer, M/s. Bon Ltd was engaged in the manufacture and was assessed under Central Excise. It is also not a case that M/s. Bon has removed the input lying in the factory without payment of duty or disposed of otherwise. - it is permitted even to transfer the Cenvat credit to the buyer unit as well as transfer of stock of input. In this regard, the Revenue in their ground of appeal stated that since factory was partly sold therefore Rule 10 is not applicable. - No infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/1489/09-MUM - - - Dated:- 15-1-2015 - Ramesh Nair, Member (J),J. For the Appellant : Shri Rakesh Goyal, Addl. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent : Mis Padmavati Patil, Adv. ORDER Pe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l, Ld. Addl. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf o the Revenue reiterates the grounds of Appeal. He submits that in terms of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 manufacturer availed Cenvat Credit only if the input received by them is used in the manufacture of final product, which cleared on payment of duty. He submits that respondent M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd have not used the inputs which has gone to M/s. Bon Ltd, hence they are required to reverse the Cenvat Credit availed on such input sold as such. He placed reliance on the judgment in case of [2009 (263) E.L.T. 240 (Kar)] CC., Ex. Belgaum Vs, Associated Cement Co. Ltd., and [2004 (173) E.L.T. 145 (Tri.-Del.) Majestic auto Ltd. Vs. CC Ex. Ghaziabad and [2006 (201) E.L.T. 114 (Tri.-D .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ad High Court in Central Excise appeal No. 13/2005 vide order dated 30/8/2012. As regard the case of CC., Ex. Belgaum Vs, Associated Cement Co. Ltd (supra) she submits that on the very same issue the Alahabad High Court in the case of Majestic auto Ltd. Vs. CC Ex. Ghaziabad held that capital goods on which modvat credit was taken remained installed in the same premises which was leased out and continue to be engaged in the manufacture, there is no removal of goods. She further submits that in the case of CC., EX. Belgaum Vs, Associated Cement Co. Ltd the provision of Rule 10 was not considered. Therefore the ratio of the CC., Ex. Belgaum Vs, Associated Cement Co. Ltd case is not applicable in the present case. On the contrary, Ms. Patil rel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ture with the specific provision for transfer of liabilities of such factory, then, the manufacturer shall be allowed to transfer the CENVAT credit lying unutilized in his accounts to such transferred, sold, merged, leased or amalgamated factory. (2) If a provider of output service shifts or transfers his business on account of change in ownership or on account of sale, merger, amalgamation, lease or transfer of the business to a joint venture with the specific provision for transfer of liabilities of such business, then, the provider of output service shall be allowed to transfer the CENVAT credit lying unutilized in his accounts to such transferred, sold, merged, leased or amalgamated business. (3) The transfer of the CENVAT credit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mber of decisions on the issue of transfer of ownership of factory where the appellate authorities have repeatedly held that since there is no removal of goods from the factory, no duty was required to be paid. On transfer, credit availed materials are available to the buyer, who continues to be engaged in the manufacture of same goods and therefore as per statutory provisions, such assessee was not required to pay back the credit availed on inputs, they sold to the buyers. Thus, the sale of factory does not amount to removal. In this connection I find that the appellants have rightly and properly relied on the decisions in cases of (i) Jamna Auto Inds- 2001 (130) ELT 181 (T) (ii) Whirlpool India Ltd. - 2003 (58) RLT 241 (T) (iii) Metzeller .....

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