2017 (11) TMI 814 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excise duty paid - refund claimed on the ground that they are eligible for refund since they had intimated the department about shifting of their premises and that the stock shifted from Bangalore had been duly accounted in their books of accounts - Section 11B of CEA, 1944 - Held that - the appellant vide their letter dt. 18/12/2008 have intimated to the respondent that they are shifting the goods from their Unit-I to their Unit-II and they have also submitted a list of goods to be shifted and also sought the permission under Rule 10 of the CCR for availing the CENVAT credit of the duty paid on raw material, semi finished goods and packing material from Unit-I to Unit-II - there is no requirement that a written permission must be obtained from the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise to take credit of duty when the whole unit is merged with the other unit of the same factory. The appellant can take the credit of the said amount instead of seeking refund - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the Commissioner(Appeals) order rejecting the appellant's refund claim of ?3,10,633 under CENVAT credit rules. The appellants shifted their operations from Bangalore to Tumkur without obtaining prior permission, leading to a duty liability on the goods transferred. The appellant claimed eligibility for refund as they had intimated the department about the premises' shifting and accounted for the stock in their books. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim, upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals), prompting the present appeal.

Judgment:
After hearing both parties and examining the records, it was noted that the appellant had intimated the respondent about the shifting and sought permission under Rule 10 of CCR for availing CENVAT credit. Rule 10 of CCR, 2010 does not mandate written permission from the Assistant Commissioner for merging units within the same factory. The appellant discharged the Central Excise duty and sought recredit instead of a refund. The Superintendent of Central Excise recommended the appellant's case for a refund. Consequently, the appellant was allowed to take recredit of ?3,10,633 paid earlier. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant could recredit the amount, disposing of the appeal in their favor.