2014 (3) TMI 831 - AT - Central Excise

Partial appeal success: penalty waived, duty demand confirmed. Cenvat credit transfer under Rule 10. Fair appeal hearing emphasized.

ROHIT SURFACTANTS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHOPAL

The appeal was partially allowed with the waiver of penalty but confirmation of duty demand. The appellant's appeal was restored based on the availability ... Availment of CENVAT Credit - Duty demand - Suo moto credit - Held that:- appellant had not taken suo motu credit but credit was taken under sanction of Scheme of Amalgamation by Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in terms of order [2005 (3) TMI 475 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD]. Considering such aforesaid aspects and also reading para 5.18 of copy of order of Hon’ble High Court (which is a photo-copy available on record), it is understood that the appellant was granted right over the assets and had undertaken to discharge the liabilities as a transferee company as a party to Scheme of Amalgamation, Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 permits availability of Cenvat credit to the transferee company who is present appellant - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues: Appeal dismissal without adjournment, waiver of penalty, duty demand confirmation, restoration of appeal, availability of Cenvat credit to transferee company.In this judgment, the appellant's counsel raised concerns regarding the dismissal of the appeal without an adjournment being granted, leading to the partial allowance of the appeal with the waiver of penalty but confirmation of duty demand. The counsel cited personal difficulties for not attending the hearing and sought restoration of the appeal based on a Supreme Court decision and the appellant's merit supported by a company court order. The Revenue representative argued against the restoration, stating that once an appeal is decided on merit, restoration is not permissible. However, the appellant's counsel clarified that the appellant had not taken credit suo motu but under the sanction of a Scheme of Amalgamation approved by the High Court, granting the appellant rights over assets and liabilities as a transferee company. Referring to Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which allows credit to transferee companies, the appeal was restored to meet the ends of justice, considering the appellant's status as a transferee company under the amalgamation scheme.The judgment highlights the importance of procedural fairness in appeal hearings, emphasizing the need for parties to have a reasonable opportunity to present their case. It also underscores the significance of legal provisions such as Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, in determining the availability of credit to transferee companies in specific circumstances like amalgamations. The decision showcases a balance between upholding procedural integrity and ensuring substantive justice by considering the unique circumstances of the appellant's case and granting relief accordingly.