TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 476
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of cenvat credit. The factory was sold to M/s. Unwin Packaging Industries Ltd. on 27.06.2005. However, the Central Excise registration was surrendered only on 29.03.2006. After sale of the factory on 27.06.2005 and until the surrender of the registration on 29.03.2006, the appellant continued to make use of the cenvat credit, which was available on the date of the sale of the factory to make payment of central excise duty. As per the facts on record, the appellant has got corrugated boxes manufactured from its sister concern by name, M/s. Perfect Packaging Pvt. Ltd. At the time of clearance of the boxes done the job worker, duty was paid by the appellant by debiting the cenvat credit available in the books of the appellant. Departmental off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e present appeal. 3. Heard Shri Manish Saharan, ld. advocate for the appellant and Shri M.R. Sharma, ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue. 4. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants argues as follows:- (i) Even though the factory was sold on 27.06.2005, the Central Excise registration continued to be in operation until it is surrendered on 23.09.2006. During this period, they have got the corrugaged box manufactured on job work basis, which is permissible under the job work Notification No.214/86-CE, dated 16.03.1986. There is no bar on availing the cenvat credit, which continues to remain in the books till the date of surrender of the registration. (ii) Since the excise duty stands paid on the goods by avai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred to the new unit. Accordingly, he prayed for upholding the impugned order. 6. The assessee's factory was sold to M/s. Unwin Packaging on 27.06.2005. However, the registration certificate continued to be in the name of the assessee until the date of its surrender with the Department on 29.03.2006. The dispute is with reference to the period in between two dates given above. The claim of the assessee is that the corrugated boxes were got manufactured by their sister concern on job work basis. The duty was paid by the assessee making use of the credit, which was available on the date of sale of the unit until the date of surrender of the registration. The Departmental authorities took the view that this was not allowable. Consequently,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le to make use of the Cenvat credit available in their books. I find that the registration for the factory continued to be in favour of the assessee upto 29.03.2006 even though the sale deed dated 27.06.2005. In the eyes of the Department, the factory premises continue to remain registered in the name of the assessee. The job work Notification No.214/86-CE gives the facility to any manufacturer to get processed or manufactured from another premises, subject to the observance of the procedure prescribed in the Notification. The principal manufacturer, who gets goods manufactured on job work basis will continue to be responsible for payment of central excise duty. 9. In the line with the Notification, the assessee would be entitled to get ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manufactured outside factory. On this ground also the demand for reversal of Cenvat credit is not justified. 11. Now I turn to the assessee s claim of the demand being hit by time barred. A perusal of the Show Cause Notice reveals that the demand has been raised by mechanically invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. I find no discussion or even a murmur of any evidence or allegation that the respondent has indulged in the act of suppression of facts or wilful mis-statement, contravention to the provision of the said Rule. In the absence of any of the ingredients, there can be no justification to invoke the extended period of time for issuing demand. Respondent has relied on many case laws including the decision of the Hon'bl....