9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is uncontested that the spurn yarn manufacture had been transferred to IRTL without any physical shifting of capital goods, finished products and inputs lying in the appellants factory. IRTL got separate registrations. The appellant deleted the portion of area and contents therein transferred to IRTL from the ground plan as was in the case of Jamna Auto Inds.[ 2000 (9) TMI 146 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] Provisions of Rule 57F(2) is similar to Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules on inputs and capital goods and such a transfer in law, following the decisions submitted by appellant. The impugned order demanding duty u/s 11A of C.EX. Act as duty on the finished goods lying in stock on the day of transfer of spurn yarn business to IRTL is incorrect u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellant has to pay/reverse the Cenvat credit in respect of capital goods and inputs lying as such and inputs (raw materials) contained in finished products lying as such and transferred to IRTL as on 1-4-2003. 2. (a) On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides we find that the appellant prepared a scheme for transfer of spun yarn business to another company namely M/s. Indorama Textiles Ltd. (for short IRTL) and got approved by MP High Court. (b) The appellants transferred portion of its spurn yarn manufacture to IRTL by segregating by building a boundry wall in between with different gates/entrance. IRTL applied for separate C.EX registration and the raw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucts lying in factory were not physically removed i.e. physically shifted therefore there is no liability to pay duty on such finished goods inputs capital goods. The finished goods which cleared by IRTL by paying duty. (c) The ld. Advocate submits that the demand of duty on the goods can be raised only at the time of removal and not before the goods were removed from the factory relies upon - (d) BPL Electronics Ltd. v. CCE [1994 (71) E.L.T. 801]. (e) Jamna Auto Inds. Ltd. Anr. v. CCE, Indore [2001 (130) E.L.T. 181 (T) - 2000 (41) RLT 826]. (f) Metzeller Automotive Profile India P. Ltd. v. CCE [2004 (167) E.L.T. 208]. 4. In the present case it is uncontested that the spurn yarn manufacture had been transferred to IRTL without any physical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The above position in law, when read with the observation in para 38 of the very decision. Removal means physical shifting of goods has been laid down 'place of removal' to be may be a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of excisable goods. Therefore, in the present case by mere change in ownership possession 'Removal' of goods cannot be construed. There was no reason to order recovery of duty on excisable goods before the registration was altered there is no reason for such determination after alteration of registration as no shifting in physical term has occasioned IRTL has to and has discharged duty on removal/clearance from the premises. 6. In view of the finding the appeal is required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
