Tribunal overturns order, grants appeal, emphasizes compliance and CENVAT credit accuracy.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. The decision highlighted the appellant's compliance with procedural requirements and the absence of discrepancies in availed CENVAT credit amounts, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant.

---

---

Issues:

1. Transfer of CENVAT credit from one unit to another under Rule 10 of Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Allegations of wrongly availing CENVAT credit and contravention of Credit Rules.
3. Show cause notice proposing penalty under Rule 15 of Credit Rules read with relevant provisions.
4. Compliance with procedural requirements under Credit Rules for transfer of credit.
5. Discrepancy in availed CENVAT credit and submission of relevant documents.

Transfer of CENVAT Credit:
The appellant, a manufacturer of transformers, shifted its factory from Delhi to Alwar, Rajasthan, transferring accumulated unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 10 of Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant duly intimated the transfer to both Delhi and Bhiwadi jurisdictions. The issue arose when a show cause notice alleged wrongful availing of CENVAT credit, leading to confirmation of demand by the Commissioner.

Allegations and Compliance:
The appellant contended that they followed all procedures, intimating the transfer and providing necessary documents. The appellant argued that no contravention occurred, citing relevant judgments. The Department raised objections after nine months, requesting additional documents for credit availed at the previous unit. The appellant submitted ER-I Returns for verification, showing consistency in credit amounts between locations.

Procedural Compliance and Discrepancy:
The Tribunal analyzed Rule 10 of Credit Rules, emphasizing the requirement of intimation and satisfaction of the Commissioner, not explicit permission for transfer. The Tribunal found the appellant compliant with procedural requirements, rejecting the Revenue's call for remand. It noted the consistency in credit amounts declared in ER-I Returns for both locations, concluding that the impugned order was incorrect and illegal.

Judgment:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. The decision highlighted the appellant's compliance with procedural requirements and the absence of discrepancies in availed CENVAT credit amounts, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant.

---

---