Transfer of Credit in case of Closure of factory is permissible in terms of Rule 10 of CCR 2009: CESTAT [Read Order]

The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the transfer of credit in case of closure of a factory is permissible in terms of Rule 10 of Cenvat Credit Rules (CCR) 2009.

The appellant M/s. Glass House filed a Bill for the clearance of “Dark Green Reflective Float Glass” which was imported from China. On examination, the officers found that as per Notification No.4/2009, the imported goods were liable for anti-dumping duty, however since the appellant disputed leviability, the goods were cleared with a provisional bond.

On finalization of provisional duty, the original authority confirmed the duty amount of Rs. 1,50,649/- along with interest under Section 18(3) of the Customs Act 1962, in view of Notification No.4/2009. The Commissioner (Appeals) also confirmed the antidumping duty on the ground that there was a specific exclusion for Reflective Glass from the purview of the anti-dumping duty.

The counsel submitted that the facts are not in dispute. The Reflective Glass imported by the appellant was excluded in Notification No. 165/2003 and Notification No. 51/2009-Cus. but by omission, the Reflective Glass did not find a place in Notification No.4/2009.

The Authorised Representative submitted that Notification No. 165/2003 excluded Reflective Glass from its scope, however, there is no such exclusion for Reflective Glass in the Notification No.4/2009. The exemption Notification No. 51/2009 once again provided exemption to Reflective Glass and therefore, since the relevant Notification during the time of import did not provide any exemption from anti-dumping duty to the appellant.

The Two-member bench comprising of P.A. Augustian (Judicial member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical member) held that since Reflective Glass was not found in the Notification No.4/2009- for exempting them from anti-dumping duty, question of extending the benefit does not arise.

The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that no attempt can be made to infer the motive or meaning of the Notification other than what was emanating from the plain language of the Notification. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates