2010 (10) TMI 224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... units is the same person. M/s. Disha Industries was closed down and all the capital goods and inputs were transferred to M/s. Sheil Industries, by debiting the cenvat credit involved therein. There is no dispute about the above issue. 3. However an unutilized cenvat credit to the extent of Rs. 9,74,895/-was available with M/s. Disha Industries. The same was also transferred by them to M/s. Sheil Industries on the ground that as both the units are proprietary units with a common proprietor and as M/s. Disha Industries when shifting to the new site of the factory of M/s. Sheil Industries, the said unutilized cenvat credit would also get transferred. The lower authorities have rejected the above claim of the appellant. Hence the prese....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he ground that proprietor of both the units is same and as such both the units have to be considered as one and the same unit. The above claim has not been accepted by the authorities below on the ground that both the units were located differently, were duly registered with the department and as such have to be considered as two different manufacturers. Merely because both the units are owned by one person is no ground to treat both of them as the same unit. Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the central excise registration has not been granted to Shri Arun Choksi, proprietor of the units but has been given to M/s. Sheil Industries and M/s. Disha Industries separately. A cheque issued in the name of M/s. Disha Industries cannot be cr....