Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S V & V Enterprises vs Cce, Belapur on 19 September, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVECE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II APPEAL NO. E/154/11 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PKS/262/BEL/2010 dated 23.08.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai.) For approval and signature: Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) =====================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? ===================================================== M/s V & V Enterprises : Appellant Versus CCE, Belapur : Respondent Appearance Shri Anagha Gavade, Advocate : For Appellant Shri V.K. Agrawal, Addl. Commissioner (A.R.) : For Respondent CORAM: HONBLE SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing : 19.09.2014 Date of Decision: 19.09.2014
ORDER NO.......................................................
Per: Anil Choudhary:
The appellant M/s V & V Enterprises has filed this appeal and application against the Order-in-Appeal No. PKS/262/BEL/2010 dated 23.08.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai.
2. Brief fact of the case is that the appellant had taken the CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,92,087/-, which was reportedly the balance credit transferred from their Jogeshwari unit under letter F. No. V/Misc (30) 27/2007 dated 27.06.2007 issued by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant had neither furnish the declaration of quantity of inputs received with the said permission in new unit nor they informed the liability of old unit and therefore by impugned order, the Assistant Commissioner had ordered for the recovery of the CENVAT credit availed by the appellant.
3. The appellant submits that they were served with show-cause notice dated 31.03.2008 wherein it was alleged as follows:-
As per the provisions of Rule 10 (1) of CENVAT credit Rules, 2004, CENVAT credit is allowed to be transferred subject to transfer of liability and the input lying in stock is transferred to the new unit. In the present case, the appellant neither mentioned about the liability of old unit nor any input has been shown as transferred, with the letter of permission issued by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant had neither furnished the declaration of quantity of inputs received with the said permission nor they informed.
4. The learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue relies on the impugned order.
5. As the issued stood adjudicated and closed vide permission letter dated 27.06.2007, further, show-cause notice dated 31.03.2008 is wholly without jurisdiction. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief. Amounts of duty and interest paid by way of pre-deposit to be refunded with interest as per rules.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court) (Anil Choudhary) Member (Judicial) Sp 3