TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicating Authority cannot go beyond the show cause notice is well settled by catena of judgments. Otherwise also, the credit was transferred from Chennai and Mumbai after intimating the Service Tax Authorities, under the orders of the Hon’ble High Court and as such cannot be questioned by the Revenue. The scheme of amalgamation has clearly provided that all the assets of the Transferor Companies would be available to the Transferee Company. Inasmuch as the transfer of the unutilized credit has been done under the approval of the Hon’ble High Court as per the scheme sanctioned by the High Courts, the denial of the same is neither justified nor warranted. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - MISC Application No. ST/MISC/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be known as Technip India Limited. 3. In terms of the orders of the Hon ble High Courts sanctioning the amalgamations scheme, which came into effect on 21.04.2014, the appellant intimated the Service Tax Department. On 19.05.2014 the appellant intimated the Noida and Chennai Service Tax Authorities and on 22.08.2014 the Service Tax Authorities in Mumbai were informed. In these letters, it was duly pointed out by the Appellant that the scheme has been sanctioned by the Hon ble High Court and in terms of the scheme the Cenvat Credit available with the entity registered at Chennai and Mumbai, stood transferred to the entity registered at Noida with effect from 21.04.2014. 4. In this background, the Appellant took the credit available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mumbai entities. In this background, the entire credit claimed by the appellant was sought to be denied by the Department. 7. In response to the notice the appellant submitted that (a) in terms of settled law there was no requirement to obtain permissions from the Department for transfer of credit in terms of Rule 10, (b) that in any case the appellant itself had intimated the Department regarding the transfer of credit in terms of the scheme approved by the Hon ble High Courts, (c) in any case the credit transfer was not subject to compliance with the sub Rule 10 (3) in view of the fact that under Rule 10 (3) the requirement was only to account for credit on inputs or capital goods. 8. In the aforesaid background, the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e denying the Department transfer of the entire Credit. Hence the present appeal. 9. On hearing both the sides duly represent by Shri Tarun Jain, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Shiv Pratap Singh, Deputy Commissioner AR appearing for the Revenue we find that the show cause notice proposed to deny credit on the ground that no prior permission stands taken by the appellant. However, the said issue stands accepted by the Adjudicating Authority and as such it was not open to the Revenue to deny the credit on further allegations. The legal issue that Adjudicating Authority cannot go beyond the show cause notice is well settled by catena of judgments. Reference can be made to the Hon ble Allahabad High Court s decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
