9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 manufacturing activity in the current location and as such, he cannot be allowed to avail Cenvat credit, as it was ineligible. On an appeal, the ld Commissioner (Appeals), set aside the order-in-original and allowed the credit to the respondents. 5. The ld. SDR submits that it is on record that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 provision for transfer of liabilities of such factory, then, the manufacturer shall be allowed to transfer the Cenvat Credit lying unutilized in his accounts to such transferred, sold merged, leased or amalgamated factory. If a provider of output service shifts or transfers his business on ac count of change ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 availed the credit at the initial stage itself is without any basis. If it is on record that the appellant had Central Excise registration certificate for the manufacturing of the goods, taking this plea before the Tribunal is an incorrect proposition of law. When the lower authorities granted the Central Excise regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atio 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 decision of the Tribunal in the case of SG Zaveri Pharmapack (supra) the appeal filed by the revenue is liable to rejected and I do so. The impugned order is correct and does not require any interference. The appeal is rejected. CO is also disposed off.
(pronounced in court on 13-12-07)
X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
