2014 (10) TMI 91 - AT - Central Excise

Transfer of unutilized CENVAT credit - transfer of capital goods - Held that - when the matter was called, the learned counsel submitted three delivery challans covering the movement of capital goods from the units to the new units. Further, he also submitted that there was no credit relating to capital goods in the books of accounts and therefore there was no transfer of credit. Ongoing through the jurisdictional Range Officer s reports available in both the orders of the lower authorities, we find that Commissioner (A) while coming to the conclusion that capital goods had been transferred and there is no credit to be transferred, has seen the delivery challans. Delivery challans numbers and the dates are available in paragraph 11 of the impugned order. In view of the fact that there is evidence of movement of capital goods and both the Range Officers have not mentioned anything specifically regarding credit relatable to capital goods and naturally, logical conclusion would be that there is no CENVAT credit attributable to the capital goods to be transferred to units. - Decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Recall of stay order due to non-receipt of appeal paper-book and notice of hearing.
2. Early hearing application filed by the Revenue.
3. Transfer of unutilized CENVAT credit between units.
4. Verification reports by jurisdictional Range Officers.
5. Transfer of capital goods and CENVAT credit.

Issue 1 - Stay Order Recall:
The assessee filed a miscellaneous application stating non-receipt of appeal paper-book and notice of hearing, seeking recall of the stay order. However, as the matter was called, the Tribunal found the order to be ex parte and decided to hear the case on 6.8.2014. Consequently, the application for recalling the stay order was rejected as infructuous, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was considered allowed.

Issue 2 - Early Hearing Application:
The Revenue filed an application for early hearing due to the significant amount involved. The Tribunal decided to hear the matter promptly on 6.8.2014, considering it in the interest of justice for both parties.

Issue 3 - Transfer of CENVAT Credit:
The assessee sought permission to transfer unutilized CENVAT credit between their units under Rule 10 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Range Officers submitted detailed verification reports confirming the balance of unutilized CENVAT credit and the utilization of inputs for manufacturing. The reports highlighted the accumulation of CENVAT credit due to duty rate fluctuations.

Issue 4 - Verification Reports by Range Officers:
The Range Officers' reports confirmed the balance of unutilized CENVAT credit and the utilization of inputs for manufacturing MS pipes. However, the reports did not specifically mention the transfer of capital goods or any credit related to them, leading to a dispute regarding the transfer of capital goods between units.

Issue 5 - Transfer of Capital Goods and CENVAT Credit:
The learned AR argued for a remand to verify the transfer of capital goods, as the Range Officers' reports lacked details on capital goods. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found evidence of movement of capital goods supported by delivery challans. As there was no credit related to capital goods in the books of accounts, the appeal was rejected, concluding that there was no CENVAT credit attributable to the capital goods for transfer between units. The Tribunal deemed the appeal devoid of merits, eliminating the need for a remand.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of recalling the stay order, early hearing application, transfer of CENVAT credit, verification reports by Range Officers, and the transfer of capital goods and CENVAT credit between units as addressed in the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE.

← Previous Next →