ORDER
K.D. Mankar, Member (T)
1. The appellants in this case are challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) where they have been denied the Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 1,08,989. The facts are not in dispute. The appellants had been wording at C-234, Sector-10, Noida. On transfer of their manufacturing activity to new premises at A-45, Section 10, Noida, they reversed the credit of the aforesaid amount in respect of the inputs lying in stock, as well as the inputs contained in the final product — “wrist watches”, lying in stock under the directions of the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers. After due intimation to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, the appellants took credit of the aforesaid amount in their RG 23 records of the factory situated at new location, after complying with all the prescribed formalities. Proper records were maintained of the inputs/final products and the credit amounts. In his Order-in-Original dated 22.6.2000, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise had observed that, right procedure for claiming the benefit of Modvat scheme was to follow the provisions of Rule 57F(ii). The credit was denied on that ground. The appellate authority affirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. These orders are under challenge.
2. Heard both sides.
3. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid amount of credit could have been permitted to be transferred to the accounts in the factory at new location if the procedure under Rule 57F (ii) was followed. It is noticed that, the jurisdictional range and the Divisional offices continue to remain unchanged. It has not been demonstrated as to what critical information was required to be furnished in the event the appellants were to make request under Rule 57(ii) of the Rules. In any case, the Range Officer had insisted for reversal of the credit lying in the account of parent factory at the old location and this reversal was done in accordance with the directions given by the Range office. Necessary intimation has been given by the appellants to the Divisional Office about taking of credit. If this was not considered as sufficient, then the appellants could have been informed to make a request under the rule which authorities considered as the appropriate one. There is no effort made in the orders of the lower authorities to indicate as to what critical details are lacking so as to disentitle the appellants to take the credit, even if the same is required to be obtained under Rule 57F (ii). There is not even a whisper that, either the credit amount is not admissible or the quantification of the credit amount is in no way accurate. In fact, all the papers have been verified by the respective officials. The appellants finally placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Castrol India Ltd. v. Union of India, 2003 (154) ELT 19 (Bom.), wherein it has been held that the assessee was entitled to use unutilised credit at the transferred place. Besides the Tribunal judgment in the case of N.K. Chemical Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, 1998 (100) ELT 495 (T) and that in the case of Birla Ericson Opticals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, 1998 (100) ELT 498 (T) were also relied upon.
4. The submissions made by the appellants are fully justified and I find that there is no reason to disallow the credit as held in the impugned orders. The orders of the lower authorities are, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed.