Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Jubilant Life Sciences Ltd. vs Cce, Thane I on 17 September, 2019
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.1
Excise Appeal No.1818 of 2012
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.07/ANS-07/Jubilant/Th-I/2012, dt.07.11.2012,
passed by the CCE, Thane-I]
M/s Jubiliant Life Sciences Ltd ......Appellant
N-34, Anand Nagar,
MIDC, Addl. Ambernath Industrial Area,
Ambernath, Thane-421506
VERSUS
CCE, Thane-I ......Respondent
4th Floor, Navprabhat Chambers, Ranade Road, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028 Appearance:
For Appellant : Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Anil Choudhary, DC (AR) CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO.A/86624/2019 Date of Hearing: 17.09.2019 Date of Decision: 17.09.2019 PER: DR.D.M. MISRA This appeal is filed against OIO No.07/ANS-07/Jubilant/Th-I/ 2012, dt.07.11.2012, passed by the CCE, Thane-I.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants were working as an 100% EOU till 08.12.2011 and registered with Central Excise Department. The Appellant, thereafter, opted to become a DTA unit and final de-bonding took place on 18.12.2011 in Jubiliant Life Sciences-E 1818 2012 170919 2 terms of letter issued by the Development Commissioner, SEEPZ, Mumbai. On the date of de-bonding, the Appellant had in their books of account CENVAT Credit lying in balance was amounting to Rs.1,23,82,459/-; also they have utilised credit of Rs.2,84,635/- for clearances made during the period from 08.12.2011 to 14.12.2011. Alleging that the credit which has been lying in balance as on the date of de-bonding lapsed, Show Cause Notice was issued for recovery of the said credit lying in balance and utilised in clearance of the finished goods with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Hence, the present appeal.
3. At the outset, the learned Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the Appellant, after conversion of their 100% EOU to DTA unit, continued to retain the same Central Excise registration, hence the credit lying in balance as on the date of de-bonding ought to be admissible and has been rightly transferred to the DTA unit. It is his contention that the issue of admissibility of CENVAT Credit lying in balance in the accounts of 100% EOU, on the date of its conversion to DTA unit, is no more res integra and covered by the following judgment of the Tribunal.
i) Technocraft Industries (India) Ltd Vs CCE 2018 (12) TMI 8 - CESTAT, Mumbai
ii) Tecumseh Products India P.Ltd Vs CC,CE&ST, Hyderabad-IV 2016 (336) ELT 685 (Tri-Bang.)
iii) John Deere India Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE, Pune-III 2015 (326) ELT 205 (Tri-Mumbai)
iv) CCE, Thane-I Vs Sequent Scientific Ltd 2018 (4) TMI 590 - CESTAT Mumbai Jubiliant Life Sciences-E 1818 2012 170919 3
4. The learned A.R. for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
5. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both sides and perused the records. The short point involved in the present appeal for consideration is whether CENVAT Credit lying in balance in the books of account of 100% EOU as on the date of de- bonding, could be transferred to the DTA unit. We find that the issue has been considered by this Tribunal in series of judgments viz. Technocraft Industries (India) Ltd Vs CCE (supra), Tecumseh Products India P.Ltd Vs CC,CE&ST (supra), Hyderabad-IV, John Deere India Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE(supra), Pune-III and CCE, Thane-I Vs Sequent Scientific Ltd(supra). It has been consistently held by the Tribunal in all these cases that the CENVAT Credit lying in balance as on the date of de-bonding of 100% EOU and conversion to DTA unit, could be transferred to the DTA unit and be utilised by the said unit. Following the principle consistently laid down by the Tribunal in aforesaid cases, we do not find merit in the impugned order, which is contrary to the said precedents.
6. Consequently, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in the open court) (Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial) (Sanjiv Srivastava) Member (Technical) Bahalkar