9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical, though they arise out of three Order-in-Original, but same one common Order-in-Appeal. 2. The appellants started their factory in or around March, 2000. They were receiving various capital goods and got themselves registered with the Central Excise Department in March, 2000. Simultaneously, they filed a declaration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f law. As such, the benefit on the above ground was extended. However, she held that in as much as the appellants did not file the declaration of Rule 57-T, before the receipt of the capital goods in their factory, they cannot be allowed the CENVAT credit. As regards the third objection of the Revenue, though the original adjudicating authority had disallowed the credit on the ground that the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of CCE, Chennai Vs. ITC Ltd. [2008 (224) ELT 226 (Mad.)]. In any case, I find that the appellants had actually filed the declaration in March, 2000 and it is not the case of non-filing of declaration, but a case of late filing of declaration, if at all. As per the appellants in as much as they got themselves registered in March, 2000 only, they could not have filed the 57-T declaration prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
