2006 (6) TMI 449

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t considered the appellant's request as there was no provision under Rule 8 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 for transfer of credit without transfer of inputs related to the credit. 2. The appellant made an application dated 26-12-2000 under Rule 57F(20) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 [which corresponded to Rule 8(1) of the Cenvat Rules], stating that they had been manufacturing plastic tower packings at Vadodara and had opted for Modvat Scheme and were availing of Modvat credit, on the inputs received by them in relation to the manufacture of their final products. It was, further, stated that they were having another unit at Mumbai, where they were manufacturing, inter alia, tower packings. It was stated that the appellant had sto....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Commissioner made same order on the file as referred to in the letter dated 20-7-2001 of the Deputy Commissioner to the appellant, as per which the Commissioner had not considered the request as there was no provision under Rule 8 for transfer of credit without transfer of inputs related to credit as stated in the impugned communication. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended before us that since there were no inputs, no question of transferring of inputs could arise. It was submitted that transfer of unutilised credit could not be refused under Rule 57F(20), when there was no stock of inputs as such or in process and where ownership and the inputs on which credit was availed of was duly accounted for to the sa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant, stating that the Commissioner did not consider the appellant's request as there were no provisions for transfer of credit without transfer of inputs, there was no indication as to whether the Commissioner had applied his mind for reaching the satisfaction as contemplated under sub-rule (21) of Rule 57F, which corresponds to Rule 8(2) of Cenvat Rules. It is apparent that, no hearing was given to the appellant by the Commissioner before the making of the said order. No speaking order of the Commissioner has been placed on record. As held in Aar Aay Products (supra), there was a clear lapse, where neither hearing, nor a speaking order had been made in such cases. It was incumbent upon the Commissioner to have given a specific finding i....