9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1304 - AT - Central ExciseTransfer of cenvat credit lying unutilized in the accounts of M/s. SPL Polymers Ltd amalgamated with the respondents M/s. Supreme Petrochem, Ltd. - Imposition of interest and penalty - Held that - It is not the case of transfer of capital goods and inputs from one company to another. But, it is an amalgamation of M/s. SPL Polymers Ltd. with M/s. Supreme Petrochem Ltd., which have become one entity on amalgamation. The new entity is entitled to Cenvat credit which was lying unutilized in the accounts of the amalgamating company ie., SPL Polymers Limited. - The ratio of the above order squarely applies to the present case and in the present case there is no involvement of any transfer. Further, the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of CCE, Pondicherry Vs. Cestat (2008 (7) TMI 383 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ) has upheld this Tribunal s order and rejected the Revenue s appeal. - appellants are eligible for Cenvat credit. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Transfer of unutilized credit during amalgamation, interpretation of Rule 10 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Analysis: 1. The main issue in this case revolves around the transfer of unutilized credit during the amalgamation of two companies. The Revenue challenged the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that allowed the transfer of credit at the time of amalgamation. The Revenue contended that Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 does not permit such transfer of credit without the transfer of corresponding inputs. The Ld. AR for the Revenue argued that there is no provision under Rule 10 for such transfer without the transfer of inputs. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the transfer, leading to the present appeal by the Revenue. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the respondents argued that Rule 10(3) of CCR, 2004 does not restrict the transfer of credit to only the credit attributable to the physical stock of inputs. The counsel cited various case laws to support the transferability of cenvat credit even without corresponding stock of inputs. The Ld. Counsel emphasized that the issue has been settled in previous decisions and that the credit is transferable even without the physical stock of inputs at the time of transfer. 3. The Tribunal analyzed the contentions of both parties and referred to the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in detail. The Tribunal noted that the Rule 10(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 requires the transfer of inputs only if available, and the transfer of credit cannot be objected to if there was no stock of inputs. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the facts of the case and relevant legal provisions. The Tribunal also cited previous judgments, including the one by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, to support the transfer of unutilized credit during amalgamation without the physical transfer of inputs. 4. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the appellants are eligible for Cenvat credit as per the provisions of Rule 10 of CCR, 2004 and the precedents cited. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the Revenue's appeal, thereby upholding the transfer of unutilized credit during the amalgamation process. The cross objection filed by the respondent was also disposed of accordingly. This detailed analysis of the legal judgment illustrates the complexities involved in determining the transferability of unutilized credit during amalgamation under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and how the Tribunal resolved the issue based on legal provisions and precedents.
|
