Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore M/S.Sri Varahiamman Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. M/S.Sri Varahiamman Steels (P) Ltd. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore - Court Judgment |
| Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai |
| Nov-20-2009 |
| E/290 of 2007 (Deptt.), E/319 of 2007 |
| THE HONOURABLE MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE PRESIDENT |
| Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore M/S.Sri Varahiamman Steels (P) Ltd. |
| M/S.Sri Varahiamman Steels (P) Ltd. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore |
| Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR Shri S.D. Sankaran, Cons. |
the case of the department is that m/s.sri varahiamman steels (p) ltd., coimbatore (svspl) contravened the provisions of rule 9 of the cenvat credit rules, 2004 inasmuch as they had taken credit of rs.3,01,797/- wrongly in their cenvat credit account during the month of october, 2004 based on order issued to m/s.s.v.a.steel rerolling mills ltd., coimbatore (svasrml) and utilised the credit amount during the same month. the objection of the department is that the order of the assistant commissioner was in favour of svasrml and not the assessee svspl. 2. i have heard both sides. i find that only the name of the company changed from svasrml to svspl. the constitution of the company has not changed. therefore, the transfer of credit from svasrml to svspl is permissible in law. i, therefore, set aside the finding that cenvat credit lying unutilised in the account of svasrml cannot be transferred to svspl and allow appeal no.e/319/2007. 3. in the light of the above, i reject the appeal filed by the revenue for specifying the amount of penalty liable to be paid by the assessee. 4. in the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed while the appeal of the revenue is rejected.
The case of the department is that M/s.Sri Varahiamman Steels (P) Ltd., Coimbatore (SVSPL) contravened the provisions of Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 inasmuch as they had taken credit of Rs.3,01,797/- wrongly in their CENVAT credit account during the month of October, 2004 based on order issued to M/s.S.V.A.Steel Rerolling Mills Ltd., Coimbatore (SVASRML) and utilised the credit amount during the same month. The objection of the department is that the order of the Assistant Commissioner was in favour of SVASRML and not the assessee SVSPL.
2. I have heard both sides. I find that only the name of the company changed from SVASRML to SVSPL. The constitution of the company has not changed. Therefore, the transfer of credit from SVASRML to SVSPL is permissible in law. I, therefore, set aside the finding that CENVAT credit lying unutilised in the account of SVASRML cannot be transferred to SVSPL and allow appeal no.E/319/2007.
3. In the light of the above, I reject the appeal filed by the Revenue for specifying the amount of penalty liable to be paid by the assessee.
4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is rejected.