9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) . Shri Vasa Seshagiri Rao, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri S. Venkatagiri, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - In this appeal of the department, the challenge is against the permission granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the respondents for transfer of input-duty credit lying unutilized in their unit at Bangalore as on the date of closure thereof, to their new unit at Chengalpet. The amount of credit allowed to be so transferred is Rs. 37,23,609/-. 2. After examining the records, we note that the plant and machinery in the Bangalore unit was shifted to Chengalpet in August - September 1994. At that time, input-duty credit of Rs. 18,35,018/- was lying unutil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o your letters ISG:BS dated 27-3-96 and letter dated 22-10-96/4-11-96 on the above subject. 2. With reference to above, it is to inform you that the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore has accorded permission for transfer of credit of Rs. 37,23,609/- to you as per 57E Certificate dated 16-10-95 issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range - II, Rajamundry, to your packing station at Chennai, as you have shifted your plant and machinery of Bangalore to Chennai, in terms of Rule 57F(7) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 applicable during the relevant period. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (VIDHYADHAR N.THETE) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER" 4. Learned SDR submits that the objection of the department is not against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the records that this credit is part of the total amount of credit involved in the present appeal. The question now arising for our consideration is whether this total credit on inputs, which was lying unutilized at Bangalore on the date of transfer of credit to Chengalpet unit permitted by the Commissioner (Bangalore) was available for utilization at Chengalpet for payment of duty on final product. On this issue there are two decisions of learned Single Members of this Tribunal, cited before us by learned Counsel, which are as follows :- (i) Aar Aay Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CCP, New Delhi - 2003 (157) E.L.T. 40 (Tri.-Del.) (ii) Final Order No. 386/05 dated 4-3-2005 [2005 (191) E.L.T. 660 (T)] in Appeal No. E/1061/2003/MAS [Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
