TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-01-2023, the department issued 'no dues certificate' basis which Deputy Development Commissioner, Kandla issued 'final exit order' on 15-02-2013. c) On 18-02-2013 the appellant applied for surrendering the Central Excise Registration of EOU. The request was made to excise authorities to approve revised ground plan and to permit transfer of CENVAT credit of EOU unit balance to their existing DTA unit. d) Then after, on 26-02-2013, the appellant filed application before excise authorities requesting for amendment of the existing excise registration certificate of the DTA unit for including/incorporating the de-bonded EOU into DTA and basis said request amended excise registration was issued on 11-03-2013. e) Subsequently, in December 2013, during the department audit, preventive officers were called for verification of correctness of transfer of CENVAT credit from EOU to DTA. f) Upon concluding inquiry, a show cause notice dated 15.02.2014 was issued demanding CENVAT credit of Rs. 15,06,11,859/-. g) The SCN was adjudicated by the Learned Commissioner whereby the entire central excise demand has been confirmed along with interest and penal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment that the credit in dispute is ineligible, but the denial is merely based on a technical ground of alleged non-having of registration under the Central Excise Act for which substantial right of credit should not be denied. 2.2 Submission for credit of Rs. 4,21,16,159/- a) He argued that the reliance on provision of Rule 10 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has been misplaced for denying the credit of Rs. 4,21,16,159/-. After referring to provision of Rule 10 of CCR he submitted that appellant did not fall within the scope of Rule 10 of CCR as it is applicable only in cases where manufacturer shifts his factory to another site or if there is change of ownership on account of sale, merger, amalgamation, lease or transfer. The factory earlier registered as the EOU continues to be situated at the same premise even after de-bonding. The said factory was a unit of the appellant Company that was under common management; having same CIN, PAN & Sales Tax Numbers and continues to remain the same even after de-bonding. Based on the said arguments, he concluded that transitional credit during conversion of a unit is not prohibited under Rule 10 of CCR or any other rule of CCR. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued, we do not find any merit in confirming the demand on allegation of non-registration. 4.2 We also find force in appellant's arguments that the department is taking contrary stand as at one hand it is denying credit on the ground that DTA excise registration does not bear address of debonded EOU but at the same time has accepted payment of central excise duty on the clearance made from the premises of EOU. 4.3 When the appellant provided re-defined boundaries for amended registration in their application and basis the said application revised excise registration was issued, merely non mentioning of the specific plot number cannot lead to denial of credit. 4.4 Also, we find force in appellant's arguments that it is a settled law that registration of premises is not a pre-requisite for availing credit. This issue is supported by following judgments: * Beico Industries Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax, Vapi [2014 (36) STR 551 (Tribunal - Ahmd.) "8. Adjudicating authority has come to the conclusion that the eligibility to credit is not the issue, but it has been denied on the ground that assessee cannot avail the Cenvat credit as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee a sum of Rs. 4,36,985/- is accumulated Cenvat credit. The Tribunal has categorically held that even though the export of software is not a taxable service but still the assessee cannot be denied the Cenvat credit. The assessee is entitled to the refund of Cenvat credit. Similarly insofar as refund of Cenvat credit is concerned, the limitation under Section 11B does not apply for refund a accumulated Cenvat credit. Therefore, bar of limitation cannot be a ground to refuse Cenvat credit to the assessee. 7. Insofar as requirement of registration with the department as a condition precedent for claiming Cenvat credit is concerned, learned counsel appearing for both parties were unable to point out any provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules which impose such restriction. In the absence of a statutory provision which prescribes that registration is mandatory and that if such a registration is not made the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of refund, the three authorities committed a serious error in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground which is not existence in law. Therefore, said finding recorded by the Tribunal as well as by the lower authorities cannot be su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion to EOU; and (ii) Amount of duty to be paid on removal of inputs as such. As regards issue at (i), we find that as held in Order-in-Appeal No. 92/06, Rule 10 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 did not prohibit availing by EOU of the balance credit at the time of conversion of DTA. Rule 10 of CCR '04 dealt with transitional credit in situations such as shifting of factory or change in ownership or sale, merger or amalgamation or lease. The claim of the appellant that the credit balance available related to inputs received on or after 6-9-04 is not contested. In any case, no provisions prohibited an EOU from availing balance of credit when the unit converted to EOU from DTA. EOU also manufactured goods for DTA clearances. Therefore GTN's claim in this regard is correct. As regards the second issue, the Commissioner (A) ordered that the appellant was required to reverse the credit originally availed when the inputs were removed as such. We find the order to be in accordance with Rule 3(5) of CCR, 04. The appellant had reversed credit as per the said rule and the demand in this regard was dropped by the original authority in the order passed following the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs." 4.9 While the aforesaid judgments deal with scenarios of conversion of DTA to EOU and the issue at hand pertains to conversion of EOU to DTA, we observe that there is no provisions under the law which bars debonded EOU unit to avail credit in its DTA unit post conversion. Therefore, the ratio of the aforesaid judgments is applicable in the present case. Accordingly, in our view, demand of Rs. 4,21,16,159/-, cannot sustain. 4.10 The third issue of transfer of PLA balance of Rs. 7,89,895/-, of debonded EOU unit to DTA unit is concerned we find force in appellant's arguments that when there is no dispute on availability of PLA balance and when due to EOU merger into DTA unit, EOU and DTA becomes one entity and the said one entity is legally entitled to use the unutilized PLA balance. This issue is supported by following judgment: * PSP Projects Pvt Ltd V/s. Commissioner of S.T. Ahmedabad 2016(42) STR 301 (Tri. Ahmd) "4. On consideration of the arguments of both sides and scrutiny of records, it is observed that there is no dispute that Rs. 5,89,415/- was lying in the PLA account of M/s. BPC Projects as on ....