EOU converting to DTA operations wins appeal against Rs. 15.88 crore demand for CENVAT credit denial and Rule 10 CCR provisions

CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal of an EOU that converted to DTA operations. The tribunal set aside demands totaling Rs. 15,88,21,859 comprising CENVAT credit denial (Rs. 10,77,05,805), Rule 10 CCR demand (Rs. 4,21,16,159), and PLA balance transfer denial (Rs. 7,89,895). The court held that registration of premises is not mandatory for credit availment, Rule 10 CCR provisions don't apply to EOU-DTA conversions, and no legal bar exists preventing debonded EOU units from availing credit in DTA operations post-conversion. The department's contradictory stance of accepting duty payments while denying credits was rejected.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Denial of CENVAT credit of Rs. 10,77,05,805/- due to non-registration of debonded EOU.
2. Denial of credit of Rs. 4,21,16,159/- under Rule 10 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Denial of transfer of PLA balance of Rs. 7,89,895/- from debonded EOU to DTA.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of CENVAT credit of Rs. 10,77,05,805/-:

The appellant argued that after debonding their EOU unit, they sought to merge it with an adjacent DTA unit and accordingly amended the DTA registration to include the debonded EOU premises. Despite this, the department denied the CENVAT credit on the grounds of non-registration of the debonded EOU. The appellant contended that registration is not a prerequisite for claiming CENVAT credit and that the non-mention of a specific plot number in the amendment was a procedural lapse, not a substantive issue. The tribunal found merit in these arguments, noting that the appellant had made full disclosures in their application, and an amended registration was issued. The tribunal also referenced past judgments supporting the view that registration is not mandatory for availing credit and concluded that the demand for Rs. 10,77,05,805/- could not be sustained.

2. Denial of credit of Rs. 4,21,16,159/- under Rule 10 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004:

The appellant argued that Rule 10 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which pertains to the transfer of credit in cases of factory shifting or change of ownership, was incorrectly applied. The appellant maintained that their situation did not fall under the scenarios covered by Rule 10, as the factory remained at the same premises under the same management. The tribunal agreed, stating that Rule 10 could not be invoked as there was no transfer of the factory or change in ownership. The tribunal cited previous decisions that allowed the transfer of CENVAT credit during the conversion of units, supporting the appellant's case. Consequently, the demand for Rs. 4,21,16,159/- was found unsustainable.

3. Denial of transfer of PLA balance of Rs. 7,89,895/-:

The appellant contended that the PLA balance was their own money, earmarked for excise duty payments, and could be carried forward without departmental permission upon the merger of the EOU into the DTA unit. The tribunal found this argument compelling, noting that the merger effectively made the EOU and DTA one entity, entitled to use the PLA balance. The tribunal referenced a judgment supporting the transfer of PLA balances upon mergers, emphasizing that the PLA is merely a deposit for future duty payments. The tribunal concluded that the demand regarding the PLA balance was not sustainable.

Conclusion:

The tribunal determined that none of the demands could be sustained. The denial of CENVAT credit, the application of Rule 10, and the refusal to transfer the PLA balance were all found to be without merit. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs.

---