M/S. Shri Guru Containers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/944210
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided OnJul-13-2012
Case NumberExcise Appeal No.1879-1880 of 2011-SM(BR)
Judge THE HONOURABLE MS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
AppellantM/S. Shri Guru Containers
RespondentCommissioner of Central Excise, Delhi
Advocates:For the Appellants: Kumar Akarshan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Renu Jagdev, SDR.
Excerpt:
oral order no. per archana wadhwa: 1. as per facts on record, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pet jar falling under chapter 39 of the first schedule to the central excise tariff act. they were registered for their unit located at c-254, mayapuri industrial area, phase ii, new delhi. their factory was shifted to e-174, mayapuri industrial area, phase ii, new delhi on 16.3.2009, in the jurisdiction of the same range. the appellant filed an intimation to their jurisdictional proper officer on 13.4.2009, for change of address in their registration certificate. such request was accepted by the revenue and their registration certificate was amended with new address on 1.5.2009. 2. the appellants were issued two show cause notice. first show cause notice dated 9.2.2010 proposed to deny the cenvat credit of rs.1,05,345/- involved in the inputs and capital goods shifted from the earlier address to the subsequent address. the notice also proposed recovery of central excise duty of rs.1,20,792/- in respect of finished goods which were also shifted from the old address to new address. notice also proposed denial of credit of rs.7364/- availed in respect of capital goods along with confirmation of interest and penalties. second show cause notice dated 5.3.10 proposed denial of modvat credit of rs.53,853/- which was carried forward from old address to new address, along with denial of credit of rs.68,442/- availed during the period from 16.3.09 i.e., the date when factory was shifted, to 13.4.09, that is the date when the appellants applied for amendment of their address. credit availed in respect of capital goods in the month of april, 2009, amounting to rs.66,765/- was also proposed to be denied. 3. the above show cause notice culminated into an order passed by the lower authorities confirming demands and imposing penalties. the order of the original adjudicating authority was upheld by commissioner (appeals). hence, the present appeal. 4. after hearing both the sides. i find that there is no dispute about the fact that the appellants factory was shifted from c-54, mayapuri industrial area, phase ii, new delhi to e-174, mayapuri industrial area phase ii, new delhi. the appellants intimated the change in address on 13.4.2009 and their registration was amended incorporating the new address on 1.5.2009. 5. the revenue’s stand is that with the shifting of the factory, the appellant would loose all the modvat credit lying in balance in their records or as contained in the inputs or capital goods till the date of intimation i.e. 13.4.2009. on the other hand, it is the appellants contention that they continued to remain the manufacturer under the same name m/s. shri guru containers and only shifted their factory premises. there was no change in the composition of the firm. as such, the registration already granted to them only require the amendment of address and that is the reason that they have not been issued a new registration. change of address will not result in denial of credit already available with them. for the above proposition they have referred to rule 10 of cenvat credit rules, 2004, which allows a manufacturer of excisable goods to transfer all the assets and liabilities to their new place of shifting. inasmuch in the present case, i find that there is no dispute that inputs as also capital goods and final products were shifted from the old address to new address, denial of credit is not justified. i accordingly, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
Judgment:

Oral Order No.

Per Archana Wadhwa:

1. As per facts on record, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pet jar falling under Chapter 39 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. They were registered for their unit located at C-254, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi. Their factory was shifted to E-174, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi on 16.3.2009, in the jurisdiction of the same Range. The appellant filed an intimation to their jurisdictional proper officer on 13.4.2009, for change of address in their registration certificate. Such request was accepted by the Revenue and their registration certificate was amended with new address on 1.5.2009.

2. The appellants were issued two show cause notice. First show cause notice dated 9.2.2010 proposed to deny the Cenvat credit of Rs.1,05,345/- involved in the inputs and capital goods shifted from the earlier address to the subsequent address. The notice also proposed recovery of Central Excise duty of Rs.1,20,792/- in respect of finished goods which were also shifted from the old address to new address. Notice also proposed denial of credit of Rs.7364/- availed in respect of capital goods along with confirmation of interest and penalties.

Second show cause notice dated 5.3.10 proposed denial of modvat credit of Rs.53,853/- which was carried forward from old address to new address, along with denial of credit of Rs.68,442/- availed during the period from 16.3.09 i.e., the date when factory was shifted, to 13.4.09, that is the date when the appellants applied for amendment of their address. Credit availed in respect of capital goods in the month of April, 2009, amounting to Rs.66,765/- was also proposed to be denied.

3. The above show cause notice culminated into an order passed by the lower authorities confirming demands and imposing penalties. The order of the original adjudicating authority was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal.

4. After hearing both the sides. I find that there is no dispute about the fact that the appellants factory was shifted from C-54, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi to E-174, Mayapuri Industrial Area Phase II, New Delhi. The appellants intimated the change in address on 13.4.2009 and their registration was amended incorporating the new address on 1.5.2009.

5. The revenue’s stand is that with the shifting of the factory, the appellant would loose all the modvat credit lying in balance in their records or as contained in the inputs or capital goods till the date of intimation i.e. 13.4.2009. On the other hand, it is the appellants contention that they continued to remain the manufacturer under the same name M/s. Shri Guru Containers and only shifted their factory premises. There was no change in the composition of the firm. As such, the registration already granted to them only require the amendment of address and that is the reason that they have not been issued a new registration. Change of address will not result in denial of credit already available with them. For the above proposition they have referred to Rule 10 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which allows a manufacturer of excisable goods to transfer all the assets and liabilities to their new place of shifting. Inasmuch in the present case, I find that there is no dispute that inputs as also capital goods and final products were shifted from the old address to new address, denial of credit is not justified. I accordingly, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.