The appellate court dismissed the Revenue's appeal as no substantial question of law arose regarding eligibility for Cenvat credit on a lessor factory upon transfer of units.
The appeal is dismissed with no costs awarded to the Revenue.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
CEA No. 101 of 2012
Dated: 17-12-2012
Between: The Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam-II, Commissionerate, Part Area, Visakhapatnam And M/s Nagarjuna Agrichem Limited, Ethakota, Near Ravulapalem, East Godavari Dist.
…Appellant
…Respondent.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
CEA No. 101 of 2012
Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)
No question of law let alone a substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal preferred by the Revenue against the Final Order No. 1057/07 and Miscellaneous Order No. 467/07 dated 10-9-2007, passed in Appeal No. E/439/06 and E/CO/110/07, by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore (‘the Tribunal’).
The Tribunal dismissed Revenue’s appeal arising from an order in appeal dated 16-1-2006.
The Commissioner (Appeals), by the said order accepted the respondent-assessee’s proposition/submission that on obtaining lease of the factory, they are eligible to avail Cenvat credit on the lessor factory which was to the lessor factory’s credit. The Commissioner (Appeal) had observed that during the financial year 2002-03, the lessor unit had instructed the raw material supplier to deliver at the premises of job worker. The job worker had sent the final products after payment of duty, to the lessor unit. The job worker however misplaced duplicate copies of invoices and sent the same to the lessor unit after tracing out the same. Therefore the lessor unit has given them to the respondents to avail credit. Accordingly, the respondents had taken credit. Even though the respondents have taken credit after 1-4-2003 on the invoices relating to the lessor unit, the same should be
treated as lying as unutilized credit in account of lessor unit as per Rule 8 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002; and that the non-stipulation of this quantum discovered later was only a technical lapse which would not entitle them to avail the said credit.
The Tribunal agreed that in fact there was a Cenvat credit to the account of the respondent-assessee occasioned by the transfer of the unit.
No question of law arises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
_________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J
17th December, 2012
_______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
GRR
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam-II
M/s Nagarjuna Agrichem Limited
GODA RAGHURAM
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
