9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r under the said Rules to transfer the credit from one unit of the manufacturer to the other unit. Further, though, the permission was granted by the ACCE after examination of the entire records and the documents under Rule 10 of CCR but in fact, the said permission under Rule 10 is not required and the appellant is entitled to transfer the said credit from one unit to another unit under intimation to the Department. In view of the COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES LTD [ 2011 (8) TMI 666 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] , wherein it has been held by the Tribunal that prior permission under Rule 10 is not required for transferring the credit - Moreover, in the present case, the permission was validly given by the AC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the jurisdiction of Belgaum Division). It was stated that the credit pertains to input namely Bulk Zarda purchased from M/s Godavat Industries Pvt. Ltd. It was stated that such input was used for manufacture of Scented Zarda and duty payment was made under Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machine Rules, 2010. The appellant stated that they shifted their Unit from Manakapur falling under Belgaum Division to Hubballi Division and at the time of such transfer, they had credit balance of CENVAT credit amounting to ₹ 82,43,909/- and accordingly sought transfer of such credit to Hubli Unit. They stated that for all practical purpose, the Manakapur unit stands closed and there was no provision for claiming refund of such C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it. Aggrieved by the OIO, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the same. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that on perusal of Rule 16 of the Chewing Tobacco Rules which provides for availment and utilization of CENVAT credit clearly indicate that the provision shall be applicable to the manufacturer and there is no mention of unit as against the specific mention of unit in CCR. He also submitted that in terms of Rule 2 (4) of the Chewing Tobacco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the definition of inputs and input services prescribed under CCR. Learned Counsel also referred to the decision in the case of Hans Steel Rolling Mill Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Chandigarh [2011 (265) ELT 321 (SC)], wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has held that importing of elements of one scheme of tax administration to a different scheme of tax administration would be wholly inappropriate as it would disturb the smooth functioning of that unique scheme. 4.1. Learned Counsel further argued that, in fact, there was no requirement for obtaining permission under Rule 10 of CCR, 2004 for transferring credit. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: Hewlett Packard (I) Sales (P) Ltd. V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . UOI 2017 (350) ELT 181 (Bom.). 5. On the other hand, Learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the permission earlier granted vide letter dated 27.01.2016 has rightly been withdrawn in view of Rule 16 of Chewing Tobacco Rules, 2010. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and after going through various Rules as provided in Chewing Tobacco Rules, 2010, I find that the following facts are undisputed: (a) The appellant claimed for credit on duty-paid bulk Zarda at their erstwhile Manakapur factory is undisputed, till date. (b) That the appellant has a balance of unutilized credit at their Manakapur factory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
