2009 (10) TMI 326

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Member (T) Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V.V. Hariharan, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. We find that while hearing the stay petition and allowing complete waiver of the predeposit, the Bench had taken into consideration the following:- "The appellants had taken input duty credit to t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mponents and parts were eligible for input duty credit and also that the said inputs had not been removed by the assessee out of their factory. It was categorically held by the appellate authority that the inputs had lost their identity through utilization in the cogeneration plant. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has pointed out that this crucial finding of the appellate authority has become final f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d shifting which is recorded in his Order-in-Appeal under which the credit has been permitted. The learned counsel further argues that the appellants have transferred their unit from Tirumandankudi to Achithur but the ownership remains with the appellants and the assets and liabilities remain with them. Hence the credit allowed by the lower appellate authority in the appeal proceedings, which has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ferred to the new site. In the present case, the transfer of the unit has taken place first and the lower appellate authority has allowed the credit to the appellants at a later point of time. Rule 8 does not envisage such a situation nor does it provide for such a case. Moreover, in the present case, the inputs were utilized long ago and only the credit in respect of those. was disputed which has....