2010 (6) TMI 437

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... consumption has been shown in the manufacture of the final product. The final product manufactured out of the same is accounted for in the RG 1 Part-I register, which stand cleared on payment of duty. As such to deny the benefit of waste and scarp on the ground that the same was not an input, is not justified.
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) REPRESENTED BY : Shri M.A. Patel, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri S.K. Mall, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - As per facts on record appellant took over the running business of M/s. Gujarat Telephone Cables Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'GTCL') along with installed machinery and factory premises on lease basis and continued the manufacturing activities after getting central excise regi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat in terms of Rule 10(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, credit can be transferred only if the stock of inputs lying either as such or in process are also transferred along with factory or business premises. Further the liabilities of the previous unit have also to be transferred. As the appellants have failed to prove by documentary evidence that credit available was of credit of inputs which were also transferred to the appellant, benefit cannot be extended in terms of Rule 10. 4. As against the above the appellants have contended that as admittedly there were no stock of raw material or finished goods, the question of transferring the same does not arise. As regards the transfer of liabilities, it has been brought to my notice that at th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ld against the assessee and the credit cannot be denied on the above ground. As such the ratio of the above decisions fully applied to the facts of the instant case. 6. Apart from above, I find that the demand in question is barred by limitation. The show cause notice was issued to the appellant in 2008 i.e. after a period of three years from the date of surrender of the license by M/s. GTCL, while transferring the factory as also from the date of grant of new registration to the appellant. The department at the time of above exercise knew that there was no stock of raw material or finished goods available with M/s. GTCL undertook to discharge all central excise dues which may arise subsequently. In these circumstances it cannot be sa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X