TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 814
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... noticed: 2.1.The respondent/ Assessee is a manufacturer of workstation chairs, which fall under tariff sub heading no.94033010 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short, CETA). 2.2.The respondent had accordingly, obtained a Registration Certificate, for its manufacturing unit, set up at Hosur. This factory unit was closed with effect from 31.03.2010. Consequently, the Registration Certificate issued, qua, the Hosur manufacturing unit was surrendered by the respondent/assessee on 31.03.2010. 2.3.It appears, that the respondent/ Assessee thereafter, applied for transfer of un-utilized cenvat credit to their unit at Bangalore, where, according to it, it had shifted its assets and stock, which were lying at the Hosur unit. 2.4.It appears, that this request was made by the respondent/ Assessee vide letter dated 18.05.2010. The request of the respondent/ Assessee, however, was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 18.06.2010. 2.5.Given this position, the respondent/assessee filed for refund of the un-utilized cenvat credit, pertaining to the Hosur unit, by taking recourse to Rule 5 of the 2004 Rules. 2.6.We are informed, that this step was taken by the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, amalgamation take over etc. of the unit only which is not the case here. Here the existing unit at Hosur has been closed and R.C. Surrendered, thus there is no provisions in Cenvat Credit Rules to transfer unutilised cenvat credit in such cases to their another unit at Bangalore and Rule 10 is not applicable to the above issue on hand. This fact was also informed to them by the Assistant Commissioner, Hosur II Division vide his letter dated 18.6.2010 also advising them to file Refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Hence there is no possibility of ordering transfer of cenvat credit lying unutilised under Rule 10 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004." 4.3.Being aggrieved, the respondent/ Assessee, carried the matter in appeal to the First Appellate Authority. 5.The First Appellate Authority, i.e., The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) (in short, The Commissioner of Appeals), vide order dated 05.02.2014, confirmed the view taken by the Adjudicating Authority. 5.1.Importantly, the matter in issue, that is, as to whether the respondent/assessee could seek transfer of cenvat credit to its Bangalore unit, was dealt with by him, in paragraph no.6 of its order. The observat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tand, largely, relies upon the observations made in the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal. 9.1.Furthermore, in support of the conclusion reached by the Tribunal, Mr.Parthasarathy relies upon the first limb of Rule 10 of the 2004 Rules, which permits, according to him, transfer of cenvat credit, where the assessee, i.e., the manufacturer of final products shifts his factory from one site to another site. According to him, the surrender of the Registration Certificate was a logical step upon the respondent/ assessee's factory being shifted from Hosur to Bangalore. 9.2.Learned counsel further submits that all details, with regard to stock etc., were supplied to the Adjudicating Authority. For this purpose, learned counsel has taken us through the reply dated 25.03.2011, filed in response to the show cause notice, issued by the Appellant/ Revenue. 10.We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 11.According to us, clearly, the following emerges from the record: 11.1.The respondent/assessee had a manufacturing unit set up at Hosur, which was closed on 31.03.2010. 11.2.The Hosur unit was shifted by the respondent/assessee to Bangalore. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry to another site. Second, when, the factory is transferred on account of : "change in ownership" or on account of sale , merger , amalgamation , lease or transfer of factory to a joint venture, with specific provision for transfer of liabilities of such factory. It is, in these situations, the manufacturer is allowed transfer of cenvat credit lying un-utilized in his accounts, to such, transferred , sold , merged , leased or amalgamated factory. 12.3. One would notice that in sub-rule (1) of Rule 10, there is no reference to a circumstance, as in this case, where, an assessee may have relocated his business after completing the process of shifting from one place to another. 12.4. The submission advanced by Ms.Hemalatha, on behalf of the Appellant/Revenue stresses on this aspect of the matter and the fact, that since the respondent/assessee had closed down its manufacturing unit, it would not fall in any of the two broad circumstances, set out above. According to us, the submissions advanced by Ms.Hemalatha are unteanble. 12.5.The reason we say so, is that, the word shifts , which occurs in the first limb of Rule 10(1), will include a situation where an unit located at, say, pl....