2022 (4) TMI 362

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i Rajesh Chhiber, Advocate - for the appellant. Shri Amit Bhardwaj, Authorized Representative (DR) - for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order denying transfer of Cenvat credit on transfer of the unit. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is having its factory at B-8, Sector 58, Noida and also at C-157, Sector 63, Noida. For both the uni....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... input, as such, in process of capital goods are also transfer alongwith factory with business premises. The said order was challenged before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who observed that transfer should have been immediately in 2013 and there were no supporting documents to ascertain the actual admissibility of credit at a belated stage, therefore, denial the credit. Against the said orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orized Representative supported the impugned order. 5. Heard the parties considered the submissions. 6. We find that it is a fact on record that there were no physical input or were in progress available at the time of shifting of the factory, but Cenvat credit was lying in their Cenvat credit account, therefore, as held by this Tribunal in the case law cited by the learned Counsel of the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 in connection with the appellant's plea that there was no stock of inputs which could be transferred, and whether the capital goods on which credit was availed were duly accounted for, as contemplated by Rule 8(2)of the Cenvat Rules. I....