Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Videocon Industries Ltd vs C.C.E., Jaipur-I on 15 January, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066
Date of Hearing 15.01.2014
For Approval &Signature :
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3.
Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
Appeal No. E/1724/2007 -EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.109(GRM)CE/JRP-I/2007, dated 26.04.2007 passed by the C.C.E.(Appeals), Jaipur-I]
M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
C.C.E., Jaipur-I Respondent
Appearance Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate - for the appellants Ms. Suchitra Sharma, AR - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order No.50080/2014, dated 15.01.2014 Per Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa :
I have heard both the sides. It is seen that the name of the company, M/s. Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. was changed to M/s. Electrolux Kelvinator Appliances Ltd. (M/s. EKL Appliances Ltd). Though the said company was merged with Videocon Industries Ltd., the period of disputes is before the merger.
2. M/s. Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. was manufacturing refrigerators and were availing the benefit of CENVAT credit of duty paid on various inputs and capital goods. When the change in the name of the manufacturing unit, the newly named unit continued to avail the benefit of CENVAT credit obtained by the manufacturing unit prior to change in its name.
3. In the above back-ground, Show Cause Notice was issued proposing denial of CENVAT credit on the ground that in terms of Rule 10 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, credit can be availed by the new unit only when the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner is satisfied that the inputs and the capital goods were also transferred to the new unit along with MODVAT credit. The Show Cause Notice culminated into the order passed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority while examining the appellants claim has observed as under:-
5. In this regard, I observe that the company has changed its title from Electrolux Kelvinator to EKL Appliances Ltd. and rest all other things are same. There is no dispute about the transfer of Cenvat Credit under Rule 10(1). But the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand on the ground that the appellant has not obtained any satisfaction of the concerned authority in terms of Rule 10(3) of the Cenvat Rules 2004. The first condition is accounting of inputs, capital goods in the book of new company and second condition is satisfaction of the jurisdictional Deputy/Assistant Commissioner. I find that the appellant has complied with the first condition, while on second condition, which is a procedural in central law has not been followed.
4. As it is seen from the above, Revenue is not disputing the fact that the appellant was entitled to CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 10(1) and is further not disputing the fact that the inputs and capital goods were entered in the account books of new company. The credit stands denied on the sole ground that the satisfaction of Asst. Commissioner was not obtained.
5. I do not find any merit in the reasoning of the Revenue. When the Revenue itself is not disputing the fact that the inputs and capital goods were entered in the account books of the new company, the satisfaction of the Asst. Commissioner is deemed to be there. Separate obtaining of the satisfaction is not the call of Rule 10 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
6. In any case, as contended by the Ld. Advocate, it was only a change in the name of the company and the company remained the same, and in such case, the provisions of Rule 10 would not apply. My attention was drawn by way of a certificate issued by Registrar of Companies, vide which only the name of the company was changed. Rule 10, as seen by me, is invokable only when the factory is transferred on account of change in ownership or on account of sale, merger, amalgamation, lease or transfer of the factory to a joint-venture. Admittedly, nothing of the above sought has happened in the present case. In the case of C.C.E., Pune Vs. DOW Agro Sciences India (P) Ltd.[2010 (261) E.L.T. 225 (Tri. Mumbai)], the Tribunal has observed that when the factory was not shifted to a new site nor ownership has been changed and there is only a change of name on account of purchase of shares, the question of taking prior permission does not arise.
7. In view of the foregoing reasons, I find no justifiable reason to deny the CENVAT credit to the appellant. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with the consequential relief to the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) SSK -2-