9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty till 18/11/2011 and was holding Central Excise registration. Subsequently, the respondent opted out of EOU and continued their operations as DTA unit under the same Central Excise registration and the final debonding took place on 18/11/2011 as per the letter issued by the Development Commissioner, SEZ, Mumbai. On the date of debonding respondent EOU unit had unutilised balance of CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods which was utilised by them for the clearance effected as a DEA unit. Show cause notice came to be issued to respondent on the ground that CENVAT credit lying in the balance of EOU unit stands lapsed on debonding and that the said amount lying as unutilised credit could not be transferred to DTA. The adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue is whether the unutilized CENVAT credit lying in balance in the books of accounts in the case of respondent EOU can be carried forward to the respondent unit on its debonding to be a DTA. There is no dispute as to the fact that the respondent is functioning under a Central Excise registration when they were an EOU and the same registration number was continued as DTA unit. I find that there is also no dispute as to the eligibility to avail CENVAT credit by the EOU and the CENVAT credit remaining unutilized is also not challenged. 7. In the foregoing facts, I find that the Learned Counsel for the respondent was correct in relying on the ratio decided by Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tecumseh Products India P. Ltd. (supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to DTA unit would be entitled to take the balance credit lying in the Cenvat account of EOU at the time of its conversion to DTA unit. In other words a successor DTA unit can get the transfer credit of the unutilized credit lying with its predecessor unit, which is an EOU in the present case."
8. In view of identical issue being decided by the Division Bench, respectfully following the same, it is held that the impugned order is correct, well reasoned and does not require any interference.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal stands rejected. Cross-Objection filed by the respondent, being in support of the order-in-appeal, also stands disposed off.
(Dictated in Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
