2005 (5) TMI 167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd that there is a change of ownership of the factory premises. An amount of Rs. 23 lakhs demand made on credit availed, and penalty imposed besides demand. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellant has to pay/reverse the Cenvat credit in respect of capital goods and inputs lying as such and inputs (raw materials) contained in finished products lying as such and transferred to IRTL as on 1-4-2003. 2. (a) On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides we find that the appellant prepared a scheme for transfer of spun yarn business to another company namely M/s. Indorama Textiles Ltd. (for short IRTL) and got approved by MP High Court. (b) The appellants transferred por....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d & were retained, in the same place where they were installed or & stored prior to the transfer of business and the provisions of Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules would not apply to the present case. The finished products lying in factory were not physically removed i.e. physically shifted therefore there is no liability to pay duty on such finished goods & inputs capital goods. The finished goods which cleared by IRTL by paying duty. (c) The ld. Advocate submits that the demand of duty on the goods can be raised only at the time of removal and not before the goods were removed from the factory & relies upon - (d) BPL Electronics Ltd. v. CCE [1994 (71) E.L.T. 801]. (e) Jamna Auto Inds. Ltd. & Anr. v. CCE, Indore ....