9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transferred, the credit available in the books of account also get transferred. Therefore the entire exercise undertaken by the Revenue became infructuous because both the companies merged and by the time proceedings were initiated technically from the date of order of the High Court, the merger also has taken place and therefore whatever credit was available in the books of account of BASFI has to be transferred to the appellant in January, 2011 itself. Even though in reality the actual transfer of the credit was made only in October, 2011 - services were utilized in both the units and therefore proportionate credit should have been availed. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that BASFI was also paying excise duty and they were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (Appeals) in the impugned order took the view that appellant is eligible for proportionate credit. 2. After hearing both the sides for some time, it was proposed by the Bench that the matter itself can be finally decided since the issue involved is not complicated and can be decided. Both sides agreed and accordingly the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and appeal is taken up for final decision. 3. The learned Counsel submitted that even though Commissioner allowed a proportionate credit, he did not specify how such credit should be allowed. The appellants have calculated the credit denied on the turnover basis. Further he submits that the merger had already taken place even before show cause notice was issued. However bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly ground taken is that the services were utilized in both the units and therefore proportionate credit should have been availed. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that BASFI was also paying excise duty and they were making payment from both PLA and Cenvat credit account. In such a situation it cannot be said that there was an intention to avail wrong credit since BASFI would have also utilized the credit. Since before passing the Order-in-Original the credit had already become part of the credit of appellant and the BASFI ceased to exist, in my opinion it would not fair and it would not be legal also to deny the credit taken by the appellants. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
