2011 (9) TMI 165 - HC - Central Excise

Shifting of premises - unutilized cenvat credit - conditions of Rule 10 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - once the condition is satisfied, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Cenvat credit at the transfer site. In the light of the factual findings recorded the proceedings by the Authorities that the credit has been availed of duly accounted to the satisfaction of the Authority, there is no case of double benefit as sought to be made out by the Assessing Authority. The Commissioner as well as the Tribunal are justified in setting aside the order and restoring the benefit to the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Transfer of unutilized credit during premises shift.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Karnataka High Court challenged the Tribunal's decision upholding the Appellate Authority's ruling that the assessee could benefit from unutilized credit despite shifting inputs and capital goods to a new location. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, moved its operations to a new plant and transferred the Cenvat Input Credit balance to the new premises. The Revenue issued a show-cause notice questioning this transfer, alleging potential double benefit to the assessee. However, the Commissioner of Appeals found that the inputs and capital goods were indeed shifted to the new premises following proper procedures. The Commissioner concluded that the assessee was rightfully eligible to transfer the unutilized credit balance without needing specific permission from the department. The Tribunal upheld this decision, prompting the Revenue's appeal.

The Court examined Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which allows the transfer of unutilized credit when a manufacturer shifts their factory to a new site, subject to certain conditions. The rule mandates that the stock of inputs or capital goods for which credit was availed must be transferred along with the factory premises. As long as this condition is met and the transfer is accounted for to the satisfaction of the Excise Authority, the assessee is entitled to the credit at the new location. Given that the Authorities confirmed proper accounting and compliance with the rule, there was no basis for denying the benefit to the assessee. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, dismissing the appeal by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the assessee met the necessary conditions for transferring unutilized credit during the shift of premises. The judgment clarified the legal provisions under Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, affirming the assessee's entitlement to the credit balance at the new location. The ruling favored the assessee, highlighting compliance with regulatory requirements and rejecting the Revenue's claim of potential double benefit.