2019 (7) TMI 821 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - shifting of factory - removal of inputs - time limitation - Department has denied the benefit of cenvat credit by merely referring to the phrase within one year from the date of issue of documents - Rule 10 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - HELD THAT - The appellants have shifted their factory from Peenya to Lakkenahalli village and the same was done after proper intimation to the concerned jurisdictional office on 09.08.2013. The Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 05.05.2015 has given the permission to transfer the cenvat credit to the new unit. Further I find that the appellant has duly adopted Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 for removal of its inputs from its old plant situated at Peenya to the new location at Lakkenahalli village. Further, the appellant has made a detailed entry for the goods shifted from old plant to the new plant duly in their inventory records to the satisfaction of the officer concerned under Rule 10(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for which the permission was accorded by the Assistant Commissioner. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - The period of one year is not applicable in the present case because the invoices pertains to the year 2013 and during that relevant time, one year condition was not there in the Rules. Appeal allowed - decide din favor of appellant.

Issues: Recovery of ineligible cenvat credit, applicability of Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules, permission for transfer of cenvat credit to new unit, compliance with Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, time limit for availing credit, reliance on previous tribunal decisions.

Recovery of ineligible cenvat credit:
The appeal was directed against an order for recovery of ineligible cenvat credit amounting to a specific sum on inputs. The Department raised objections regarding availing cenvat credit after one year of the issue of duty paying documents. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand, which was later reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant contested the order, arguing that the goods on which credit was availed were procured during a specific year and were eligible for credit at that time. The appellant emphasized compliance with rules and procedures, including seeking permission for shifting goods to a new unit and following Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The appellant also cited tribunal decisions to support their case.

Applicability of Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules:
The appellant argued that Rule 4(1) was not applicable in their case, relying on a previous tribunal decision. They contended that when goods were shifted from one unit to another under Rule 3(6), availing cenvat credit was not governed by Rule 4. The appellant's compliance with Rule 3(5) for removal of inputs to a new location was highlighted to support their position.

Permission for transfer of cenvat credit to new unit:
The appellant informed the jurisdictional office and sought permission for shifting inputs and capital goods to a new unit, which was granted by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant provided detailed records of goods shifted and obtained necessary approvals, demonstrating compliance with Rule 10(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.

Compliance with Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules:
The appellant followed Rule 3(5) for removal of inputs from the old plant to the new location, ensuring proper compliance with procedural requirements. The appellant's actions were deemed satisfactory by the officer concerned, as evidenced by the permission granted for transfer of cenvat credit.

Time limit for availing credit:
The appellant argued that the one-year time limit for availing credit was not applicable during the relevant period when the goods were procured. Citing tribunal decisions, the appellant contended that invoices issued prior to specific notifications were eligible for cenvat credit, supporting their position on the timeline for credit availment.

Reliance on previous tribunal decisions:
The appellant relied on previous tribunal decisions, such as the Mumbai Tribunal case, to bolster their arguments regarding the legality of availing credit beyond stipulated time limits. The tribunal's decision in a similar case was cited to support the appellant's contention that the impugned order was not sustainable in law.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal of the appellant based on the arguments presented and the legal interpretations provided, emphasizing compliance with rules and procedures governing cenvat credit availment.

← Previous Next →