9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the impugned order on the ground that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the issue in proper perspective. 3. The relevant facts in this case are the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, i.e., aromatic chemicals, essential oil, etc. The appellant availed inputs stage credit on the inputs purchased. The appellant indicated that they are shifting the factory from the current location to another plot. They sought transfer of the credit, which was lying in the balance in the statutory records under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 4. The adjudicating authority after issuing show cause notice adjudicated the issue and came to the conclusion that the respondent had no ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed their appeal. 7. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the respondent by holding as under "I have carefully gone through the records of this appeal, the written as well as oral submissions of the Appellants made in their appeal memorandums and in course of personal hearing and I find that Department has is sued a SCN against the appellant for contravention of Rule 8 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Rule 8 reads as follows If a manufacturer of the final products shifts his factory to another site or the factory is transferred on account of change in ownership or on ac count of sale, merger, amalgamation, lease or transfer of the factory to a joint venture with the specific pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd balance in current account. The credit of Rs. 1,01,581 /- was raised against the inputs lying at job worker's premises vide appellant's letter to department on various dates. This could have been verified by the department, in case of doubt. Further there is no evidence to suggest that inputs have not been used for manufacture of finished goods. Therefore, there is nothing much against the appellant in this case of contravention of Rule 8 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002." 8. It is undisputed that the respondent had intimated the department regarding the shifting of the factory to new location. The contention of the revenue that the respondent did not have a manufacturing facilities at the current location and, hence could not have ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turer in view of non-availability of the facility of manufacturing goods. Now the position is well settled by the above two referred decisions in favour of the appellant. Therefore, there appears to be no ground to take different view as contended by Mr. Lama, the ld. DR." 9. It can be seen from the above reproduced ratio of the Tribunal that the non-availability of manufacturing facility cannot be a bar for denial of Cenvat credit. In this case it is on record that the respondent had manufacturing facility and sought to shift the same to the new facility. It is also undisputed that stock of inputs were lying in the job workers premises of the respondent. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances, respectfully following the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
