9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken at later date at all. Once the admissibility of credit is not denied and utilization of capital goods for the purpose for which they received is accepted and it has been held by Hon’ble High Court [2007 (11) TMI 188 - HIGH COURT MADRAS] that this has to be treated as procedural lapse, following the judicial precedence and discipline, I am inclined to allow the credit in this case. - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/376/2008-SM - Final Order No. 22030/2014 - Dated:- 14-11-2014 - SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, J. For the Appellant : S/Shri Raghavendra. B. and Harish. R., Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. R. Gurunathan, A.R. JUDGEMENT Per B.S.V. MURTHY; Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are inter alia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t followed statutory procedures as envisaged under Rules 57A/57G/57T of the central Excise Rules, 1944 and as per Rule 4(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 contemplate availment of credit immediately on receipt of goods in the factory and since the appellants have sought to avail credit after several years, permission cannot be granted. After making efforts to explain to the Asst. Commissioner and making representation to the Commissioner, and on being advised to file appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Thereafter, the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter and as a result of remand, the matter was adjudicated by the Asst. Commissioner who passed an order denying credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (x) The time limit is applicable to claim the benefit of Modvat credit which is not followed by the appellant; (xi) Under the provisions of General Clauses Act, 1897 and the Limitation Act, 1963, the claim made beyond a period of three years is time barred; and (xii) The appellant s claim for allowing credit on capital goods after a period of five years is liable for rejection. 4. I find that there is no dispute in this case that the appellants received capital goods in question in their factory and used them in the manufacturing process; the appellants were seeking permission to avail credit of duty paid on the capital goods; the availability of capital goods has been verified and Range Officer also certified that the appellants h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
