(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We have heard Mr. Y. N. Ravani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. P. M. Dave, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The only question proposed as substantial question of law in the present appeal is as under:
Whether the CESTAT was right in allowing the Credit transferred by the assessee without transferring the inputs despite clear provisions contained in Rule 10(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?
3. On going through the impugned order of the tribunal, it is seen that the tribunal has dismissed the appeal on two grounds i.e. (1) on the ground of limitation as the demand raised by the department is time barred and (2) on the ground that in view of section 10(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellants are not entitled to claim transfer of credit. So far as demand with regard to transfer of credit is concerned, a question has been raised, but no question has been raised with regard to limitation and it appears that the department has accepted that the demand made by the officer of the department was time barred.
4. On the issue of limitation, the tribunal observed as under:
"Apart from above, I find that the demand in question is barred by limitation. The show cause notice was issued to the appellant in 2008 i.e. after a period three years from the date of surrender of the license by M/s. GTCL, while transferring the factory as also from the date of grant of new registration to the appellant. The department at the time of above exercise knew that there was no stock of raw material or finished goods available with M/s. GTCL undertook to discharge all central excise dues which may arise subsequently. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the Revenue was not aware of the above facts, in which case the notice issued in 2008 is clearly barred by limitation."
5. It was next observed that amount of Rs.9,456/- was denied to the assessee on the ground that the credit was availed on the waste and scrap which cannot be considered as input or the final product and also that the authority had not disclosed as to how waste and scrap could not be considered as an input. That was the finding in addition to findings on limitation arrived at by the tribunal quoted hereinabove.
6. As we agree with the view taken by the tribunal that the demand made by the department was time barred, the question sought to be raised in the present appellant in respect of credit transfer under Rule 10(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 need not be considered and is not considered and accordingly it is not considered. Without going into that question, this tax appeal is dismissed only on the ground that the demand was time barred.
7. This tax appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(V.M.SAHAI,J) (N.V.ANJARIA,J) ***vcdarji Top