2009 (11) TMI 652 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat - Change in name of Company - denial on the ground that prior permission not taken - Held that - when the respondent applied for amendment for change in the registration for the change of name, the same was granted without any objection. It means that the Department satisfied with accountal of inputs in RG-23A Part-I and credit involved therein in RG-23A Part-II. In this case, there was no change in the pattern of usage of inputs/capital goods and production of the finished goods. Therefore, the question of taking prior permission does not arise in this case - credit dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement of Cenvat credit after a change in the name of the respondent-company due to share acquisition.
2. Compliance with provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding transfer of credit.

Analysis:

1. The main issue in this case is whether the respondent is entitled to avail the credit after a change in the name of the company due to the acquisition of shares. The Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, specifically Rule 10(3), require the transfer of Cenvat credit only if the stock of inputs or capital goods is transferred along with the factory or business premises to the new site or ownership, and if the inputs or capital goods on which credit was availed are duly accounted for to the satisfaction of the authorities. The key consideration is whether the respondent has undergone a physical change and accounted for the inputs/capital goods in question.

2. The Tribunal found that in this case, there was no physical relocation of the factory or change in ownership; only a change in the name occurred due to the purchase of shares. It was also noted that there was no proper account of the inputs/capital goods. However, as per the records, when the respondent applied for an amendment for the change in registration, it was granted without objection, indicating the Department's satisfaction with the accountal of inputs and credit involved. Since there was no change in the usage of inputs/capital goods or production, the requirement for prior permission did not arise. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the lower order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the interpretation and application of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in the context of a change in the name of a company following a share acquisition. The decision hinged on whether there was a physical transfer of assets and proper accounting of inputs/capital goods. The Tribunal's analysis emphasized the lack of necessity for prior permission in this specific case, ultimately leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.