9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Ltd. to the appellant Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- The Cenvat credit available in the Cenvat credit account of M/s Karamchand Appliances Pvt. Ltd. as on 12/5/05 has obviously been utilised by M/s Karamchand Appliances only during May 2005 and, as on 01/6/05 there was no Cenvat credit balance - the department’s case against the appellant is not sustainable - The requirement of pre-deposit of the Cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty against the appellant company waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal – stay granted. - Appeal No. 57991 of 2013 (SM) - Stay Order No. 58513/2013 - Dated:- 12-7-2013 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, J. For the Appellant: Shri Shekhar Vyas, Advocate Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for utilisation of this credit, the necessary permission of the Assistant Commissioner should have been obtained under Rule 10 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules and since the same had not been obtained, the credit has been wrongly transferred by the old unit M/s Karamchand Appliances Pvt. Ltd. to the appellant and has been wrongly utilised. On this basis, after issue of show cause notice, the Jurisdictional Additional Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 30th August 2011 confirmed the Cenvat credit demand of Rs. 31,12,209/- against the appellant alongwith interest and beside this, imposed penalty of equal amount on them under Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules and another penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and penalty may be waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery thereof may be stayed till the disposal of the appeal. 4. Shri S.K. Panda, the learned Jt. CDR, opposed the stay application by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and emphasised that the date on which the entire shareholding of M/s Karamchand Appliances Pvt. Ltd. was acquired by the appellant i.e. 12/05/05, which should be treated as the date of amalgamation and hence the utilisation of the balance credit lying as on 12/05/05 by the appellant was irregular. He, therefore, pleaded that this is not the case from the requirement of pre-deposit. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. Prima facie, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
