9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (12) TMI 363 - AT - Central Excise
Issues involved: Interpretation of Rule 8 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 regarding transfer of credit and entitlement to cash refund for unutilised credit.
Issue 1: Transfer of Cenvat Credit The case involved a composite mill comprising spinning, weaving, and processing plants. The spinning unit was shifted to a new factory, and the assessees sought to transfer unutilised duty credit to the new location. The dispute arose regarding the interpretation of Rule 8 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, which allows credit transfer only when the entire factory is shifted due to various reasons like change in ownership or sale. The Tribunal held that as per the Rule, transfer is permitted only if the entire factory is moved, not just a part of it. The definition of a factory under the Central Excise Act was also considered, emphasizing that a part of a factory does not constitute a factory. Consequently, the assessees were not entitled to transfer the Cenvat credit as they had only shifted a part of the factory, the spinning plant. Issue 2: Cash Refund of Unutilised Credit Another show cause notice was issued rejecting the claim for cash refund of unutilised credit, stating that there was no provision for such refunds. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim on the grounds that the entire factory was not transferred and that the maximum amount allowed to be transferred was limited. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) later allowed the appeal of the assessees against this decision, leading to an appeal by the Revenue. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue as the primary ground of transfer of Cenvat credit was sufficient to decide the case in favor of the Revenue. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Revenue's appeal, setting aside the previous orders and denying the assessees the transfer of Cenvat credit based on the specific requirements of Rule 8. The issue of cash refund for unutilised credit was not addressed further due to the decision on the primary issue.
|
