9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or refund of the amount paid against the Cenvat Credit pertaining to one unit utilised by other separate unit for payment of duty on goods cleared prior to common single registration. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent assessee was allotted a single contiguous piece of land measuring 471 acres by the Government of Rajasthan and commenced manufacturing of cement way back in 1981. The respondent-assessee undertook a major expansion of establishing a new grinding unit known as M/s. Manglam Grinding Unit (MGU). The MGU and the manufacturing facilities then existing were not only on the same piece of land but it was also connected by a private road within its leased land and common boundary wall. Though there was distance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee vide his order dated 27.11.2013. 3. The appellant challenged such revocation ordered dated 27.11.2013 before the Hon'ble High Court Jaipur mentioning that such revocation is not legally sustainable and the cenvat credit taken under valid amended registration cannot be recovered. The Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order wherein it stayed the recovery of credits availed by the respondent-assessee in the interim period. However, the respondent assessee was asked to deposit certain amount with the Department. Accordingly, the respondent-assessee paid an amount of Rs. 7,04,29,992/- under protest. The details of such payments are reproduced hereinbelow:- Sl.No. Challan No. & date Amount deposited (Rs.) Reason for deposit 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistration which included MGU was restored. (v) The appellant filed refund claim of Rs. 7,04,29,992/- on 16.02.2015 on the basis of Order-in-Appeal dated 08.01.2015. (vi) Being aggrieved with the said Order-in-Appeal dated 08.01.2015, Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. (vii) However, in the meantime, the Commissioner adjudicated the show cause notice dated 12.04.2014 vide its order dated 10.07.2015 and held that credit of Rs. 10,86,78,623/- is allowable with effect from 31.01.2014 and service tax credit of Rs. 2,85,82,520/- is irregular and further held that cenvat credit of Rs. 1,30,748/- is irregular towards power generation. However, in concluded para the entire cenvat credit of Rs. 1,23,91,891/- was disallowed. He also con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - for which the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that it is now refundable was paid by the assessee against the Cenvat Credit so utilized irregularly for payment of duty on cement cleared from older unit. There is no provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 that credit pertaining to one unit can be utilised for payment of duty on goods cleared from another separate unit. Therefore, the findings of the Commissioner (Appeal) that the issue of amendment in registration dated 06.09.2013 has been decided in favour of the appellant is erroneous in the light of the Order-in-Original No. 01/CE/2017 dated 29.09.2017 passed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner revoking the amendment dated 06.09.2013 in the registration. 6. It has further be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... input services utilized in setting up of MGU. This has been denied through the impugned order to the extent of about Rs. 13.72 crores. The main ground cited in the Show Cause Notice for such denial is that both the units obtained common registration only on 31.1.2014 and for the period prior to this date, both the units had separate existence for the purpose of Central Excise law and hence the credit which might have been allowable to setting up of MGU cannot be allowed to be taken in the original unit, since the inputs were procured and inputs services were utilized prior to 31.01.2014. 7. The procurement of capital goods as well as utilization of input services for setting up the MGU happened prior to setting it up. The question of regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee. As already seen in the preceding paragraph, the sugar unit and the distillery unit belonged to the self-same management and they are in the same premises. Although there are two units functioning, it is not denied by the Revenue that the resultant Molasses from the manufacture of sugar was used by the assessee in the manufacture of denatured Ethyl Alcohol. Although in respect of two activities, it had maintained two accounts, yet, it related to the business of the same assessee in respect of two activities, which are interconnected too. In the circumstances, the assessee decided to go for one registration alone as against two registrations originally taken. This decision was in tune with the managem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
