ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise Vadodara has confirmed duty demand of Rs. 3,75,95,902/- along with interest on the ground that the appellants were not entitled to credit of the above amount as they are not satisfied the conditions laid down in Rule 8 (2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, after their amalgamation with Bharat Starch Industries Ltd. (manufacturer of Citric Acid) and English Indian Clay Ltd.; he has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 crore on the appellants.
2. We have heard both sides. Rule 8 of the CENVAT Credit Rule reads as under:
“Rule 8: Transfer of Cenvat Credit
(1) If a manufacturer of final products shifts his factory to another site of the factory is transferred on account of change in ownership or on account of sale, merger, amalgamation, lease or transfer of the factory the, the manufacturer shall be allowed to transfer the Cenvat Credit lying unutilized in his accounts to such transferred, sold, merged, leased or amalgamated factory.
(2) The transfer of the Cenvat Credit under Sub-rule (1) shall be allowed only if the stock of inputs as such or in process, or the capital goods is also transferred alongwith the factory to the new site or ownership and the inputs, or capital goods, on which credit has been availed of are duly accounted for the satisfaction of the Commissioner.”
A reading of the above rule shows that no prior permission from the component authority is required before transfer of credit, which is the ground of which the show cause notice was issued proposing denial of permission to transfer credit lying unutilized in the account of M/s. Bharat Starch Industries Ltd. The stock of inputs/capital goods has also been duly accounted for to the satisfaction of the Commissioner by M/s. Bharat Starch Industries Ltd. as is obvious from the fact that credit was permitted to be taken by M/s. Bharat Starch Industries Ltd. It appears that the department is insisting upon fresh accountal of stock of inputs/capital goods in terms of Rule 8(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, which is not what the rule prescribed. We also note that in the context of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules 1944, the Tribunal in the case of Usha Iron & Ferro Metals Corpn. Ltd. v. CCE, Visakhapatnam [1997 (90) ELT 512 (Tribunal)] and Collector of Central Excise v. Coimbatore v. T.T. Maps & Publications Ltd [1999 (90) E.L.T. 404 (Tribunal)], has held that credit continues to be admissible when the same specified goods are manufactured out of the same inputs in spite of change of management of the company and the declaration filed pre-merger is adequate for modvat purposes even after merger the under lying principle laid down in this decision is applicable even in the context of CENVAT Credit Rules. We note that there is no further dispute regarding availability of credit.
3. In the light of the above, we hold that the appellants are eligible to credit, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
(Operative part pronounced in Court)