9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nson Products Pvt. Ltd. on 21/3/03 and the remaining 50% of the shareholding of M/s Karamchand Appliances Pvt. Ltd. was acquired by M/s S.C. Johnson Products Pvt. Ltd. on 12/5/05. Thereafter the plan for amalgamation of M/s Karamchand Appliances Pvt. Ltd. with the appellant company M/s S.C. Johnson Products Pvt. Ltd. was sent to Hon'ble Delhi High Court for approval and the amalgamation of M/s Karamchand Appliances Pvt. Ltd. with the appellant company was approved by Hon'ble High Court on 09/6/06 w.e.f. 01/6/05. 1.1 As on 12/5/05, there was Cenvat credit balance of Rs. 31,12,209/- in the RG-23A account being maintained by M/s Karamchand Appliances Pvt. Ltd. and the same was fully utilised by end of May 2005 and as such on 01/6/05, the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant company was effective in terms of the High Court's order only on 01/6/05, that before 01/6/05, the old unit - M/s Karamchand Appliances Pvt. Ltd. and the appellant M/s S.C. Johnsons Products Pvt. Ltd. were separate companies, that since prior to 01/6/05, there was no merger, there was no question of transfer of any Cenvat credit of Rs. 31,12,209/- lying in the Cenvat credit account of M/s Karamchand Appliances Pvt. Ltd. to the appellant, that this credit had been utilised by M/s Karamchand Appliances Pvt. Ltd. and hence there is no basis for the departments case against the appellant. He also cited the judgment of Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CST, Delhi - I vs. ITC Hotels Ltd. reported in 2012 (27) S.T.R. 145 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Cenvat credit account of M/s Karamchand Appliances Pvt. Ltd. to the appellant. The Cenvat credit of Rs. 31,12,209/- 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. In view of these circumstances, I am of prima facie view that the department's case against the appellant is not sustainable. Therefore, the requirement of pre-deposit of the Cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty against the appellant company is waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery thereof is stayed till the disposal of the appeal. The stay application is allowed. (Pronounced in the op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
