2008 (7) TMI 377 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit transitional credit under rule 10 Conversion of DTA unit into EOU - The original authority had denied Cenvat credit balance of Rs. 11,07,017/- as there was no stock on 19-11-04 of inputs received by GTN during 6-9-04 to 18-11-04 Held that - As regards issue at (i), we find that as held in Order-in-Appeal No. 92/06, Rule 10 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 did not prohibit availing by EOU of the balance credit at the time of conversion of DTA. Rule 10 of CCR 04 dealt with transitional credit in situations such as shifting of factory or change in ownership or sale, merger or amalgamation or lease. Credit allowed to be transferred.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of EOU for Cenvat credit balance on conversion from DTA.
2. Duty payment on removal of inputs as such.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the eligibility of an EOU, GTN, for Cenvat credit balance on conversion from a DTA unit. The original authority denied the credit balance of Rs. 11,07,017/- as there was no stock on the conversion date of inputs received between 6-9-04 and 18-11-04. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that GTN was eligible for Cenvat credit on inputs received after the issuance of Notification No. 18/04-C.E. on 6-9-04 and lying in balance on the conversion date of 19-11-04. The Joint Commissioner, in de novo proceedings, found no stock on the conversion date and demanded the same amount as inadmissible credit. However, the Commissioner (A) later found that credit was available on the stock of goods received between the specified dates. The appeal raised grounds related to the utilization of credit by EOUs, citing relevant notifications and rules. The Tribunal held that Rule 10 of CCR '04 did not prohibit EOUs from availing the balance credit on conversion. The claim that the credit balance related to inputs received after 6-9-04 was accepted, and the EOU's manufacturing for DTA clearances supported their claim. The Tribunal also upheld the order to reverse credit on removal of inputs as such, in line with Rule 3(5) of CCR '04.

2. Regarding the duty payment on removal of inputs as such, the Commissioner (A) had ordered the appellant to reverse the credit availed in such cases. The Tribunal found this order to be compliant with Rule 3(5) of CCR '04. The appellant had already reversed the credit as per the rule, and the demand in this regard was dropped by the original authority following the directions in the earlier Order-in-Appeal. Therefore, the appeals were allowed, confirming the eligibility of the EOU for the Cenvat credit balance and the correctness of the duty payment on removal of inputs as such.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision on each issue, maintaining the legal terminology and significant phrases from the original text.