2013 (7) TMI 308 - AT - Central Excise

Transfer of Credit - shifting of factory - disallowance on the ground that capital goods were not transferred - Provisions of Rule 10(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 Held that - Appellant shifted all their inputs both as such or in process, and its finished goods to their unit at Dolvi on payment of duty equal to the credit availed on inputs. - the department case is only that the capital goods has not been transferred alongwith inputs. - It is pertinent that Rule 10(3) uses the expression inputs or capital goods and not inputs and capital goods as has been contended by the department - Appeal is allowed Decided in favor of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Cenvat credit and penalty by Commissioner of Cen.Excise.
2. Transfer of unutilized credit from Kamothe unit to Dolvi unit.
3. Interpretation of Rule 10 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding transfer of credit.
4. Applicability of High Court and Tribunal judgments on similar cases.

Analysis:

1. The issue revolved around the disallowance of Cenvat credit and imposition of penalties by the Commissioner of Cen.Excise on the appellants based on an order dated 31/03/08. The appellants, with units at Dolvi and Kamothe, were engaged in manufacturing excisable goods. The Commissioner disallowed Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 2,01,49,097/- and imposed penalties on both units for alleged contravention of Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

2. The appellants transferred unutilized credit from Kamothe to Dolvi after surrendering Central Excise Registration at Kamothe due to changes in the interpretation of manufacturing processes. The department contended that the transfer was in violation of Rule 10 as inputs were not transferred along with the credit. The appellants argued that the accumulated credit was from their earlier unit at Taloja and was transferred in compliance with the rules.

3. The interpretation of Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was crucial. The rule allows the transfer of unutilized credit when a factory is shifted, subject to the transfer of inputs or capital goods. The department argued that without transferring inputs, the credit transfer was inadmissible. However, the appellants contended that the rule does not mandate the transfer of both inputs and capital goods, and they had duly accounted for the transfer to the satisfaction of the authorities.

4. The appellants relied on various judgments to support their case, citing instances where the transfer of credit was deemed admissible upon factory shifts. However, the Tribunal analyzed the specific circumstances of this case and found that the transfer of credit without transferring inputs was permissible under Rule 10. The Tribunal also highlighted discrepancies in the Commissioner's order, referencing previous tribunal and High Court decisions that favored the appellants.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants on the grounds of compliance with Rule 10 and inconsistencies in the department's arguments. The judgment emphasized the importance of following legal provisions accurately and considering specific case details while interpreting rules and precedents.