9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earliest opportunity when the inputs are received in the factory - This, however, does not mean, nor is it even intended that if the manufacturer does not take credit as soon as the inputs are received in the factory, he would be denied the benefit of CENVAT credit - Such an interpretation is not tenable - Decided inb favour of assessee. - E/766/10 - A/1364/2011-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 28-7-2011 - Hon ble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical) Appellant : Shri S.K. Mall, SDR Respondent : Shri Paritosh Gupta, Adv Per: Mr. B.S.V. Murthy: Respondent had taken credit of service tax in respect of goods transport agency service and maintenance repair service for the period from 31.12.06 to February 2008 in the month of March ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 (118) ELT 311 (S.C.) was cited to submit that in the absence of any specific period the credit has to be taken within a reasonable period. Further the decisions in the case of M/s. J.V. Strips Ltd. Vs. CCE Rohtak reported in 2007 (218) ELT 252 and CCE Hyderabad Vs. Mold-Tech Technologies Ltd. reported in 2006 (205) ELT 415 were also cited to support the submission that six months is the reasonable period to take the credit. 3. The learned advocate on behalf of respondents submitted several decisions of the Tribunal to support his submission that credit can be taken at any time. Further he also submitted that in their own case for a different period, the Tribunal had taken a view that it is not necessary that credit should be taken wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses cited and present one. According to the Revenue if the credit is not taken because of the failure of the clerk, it would not be admissible but if it is taken because of ignorance or doubt as in the two decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. and Dishman Pharma Chem. Ltd., it may be admissible. I do not find that this is legally correct. The two decisions cited in the case of J.V. Strips Ltd. and Mold-Tech Technologies Ltd. are rendered by Single Members but other decisions are of Division Benches. Further it is also noted that it is the case of respondents themselves while deciding similar issue in this case, the decision in the case of J.V. Strips Ltd. had been taken note of. In any case the decision of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
