2013 (2) TMI 166 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Transfer of CENVAT Credit - Rule 10 of CCR, 2004 - Shifting of factory - Intimation to their jurisdictional proper officer on 13.4.2009 - Registration certificate was amended with new address on 1.5.2009 - Whether change of address will result in denial of credit already available with them Rule 10 of CCR, 2004, which allows a manufacturer of excisable goods to transfer all the assets and liabilities to their new place of shifting. There is no dispute that inputs as also capital goods and final products were shifted from the old address to new address, denial of credit is not justified. In favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of Cenvat credit for goods shifted to a new factory address
- Denial of modvat credit for goods transferred to a new factory location

Analysis:
1. Denial of Cenvat Credit:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing pet jars, shifted their factory to a new location within the same Range. The Revenue issued two show cause notices proposing denial of Cenvat credit for inputs, capital goods, and finished goods transferred to the new address. The lower authorities confirmed the demands and penalties. However, the appellant argued that the shift in factory location did not alter their status as a manufacturer, and the registration amendment only changed the address, not the entity itself. The appellant relied on Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which allows for the transfer of assets and liabilities to a new location. The Tribunal found no dispute that goods were indeed shifted and held that denial of credit was unjustified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.

2. Denial of Modvat Credit:
The second show cause notice focused on denying modvat credit carried forward and availed during the transition period. The Revenue contended that the shift in factory location should result in the loss of credit until the date of intimation. Conversely, the appellants maintained that the change in address did not affect their status as the same manufacturing entity. The Tribunal noted that all goods were shifted to the new address and ruled in favor of the appellants, citing Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, to support the transfer of assets and liabilities. As there was no change in the firm's composition, the denial of credit was deemed unwarranted. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and granted consequential relief to the appellants.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment in the case addressed the issues of denial of Cenvat and modvat credit due to the shift in factory location. By interpreting relevant rules and considering the continuity of the manufacturing entity despite the change in address, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing their appeal and overturning the lower authorities' decisions.