Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether CENVAT credit could be denied on the ground that the factory had shifted and the credit was not transferred in the manner contemplated by the rules.
Analysis: The relevant rule permits transfer of unutilized credit when a factory shifts to a new site and the inputs or capital goods are transferred to that site. On the facts, the credit dispute related to inputs already utilized long before the shift, and the entitlement to that credit had been finally accepted in an earlier appellate order that had not been challenged by the Department. The later transfer of the finished equipment to a sister concern did not affect the credit already earned on the inputs used in their manufacture. The rule did not cover a situation where the unit had already shifted and the credit was allowed later pursuant to an unchallenged appellate order. Denial of the credit in those circumstances had no legal basis.
Conclusion: The denial of credit was unsustainable and the assessee was entitled to the credit.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Credit validly earned on inputs cannot be denied merely because the factory has already shifted, where the governing rule applies only to transfer of unutilized credit upon shift and the entitlement to the credit has already attained finality.