9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant took registration on 19-5-03 and filed declaration of stock lying as on 31-3-03/1-4-03 and out of which they claimed Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,47,437/- in respect of the materials which were yet to be received in the factory on the crucial date and which were reportedly in transit. (b) The original authority disallowed the credit to the above extent on the ground that inputs were not available with the appellants as on 1-4-03, the date stipulated for one time credit availment - transition measure. (c) The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original authority, inter alia, holding that that the address at which the goods were lying was not furnished. 3.2 The relevant facts, in brief, relating to Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the availability of credit in respect of goods lying at places other than factory premises, CBEC has issued instructions dated 28-3-03 which is as follows: "Please refer to Rule 9A of Cenvat Credit Rules issued vide Notification No. 25/2003-Central Excise (N.T.), dated 25-3-2003, regarding transitional provisions pertaining to Textiles and Textiles Articles and declaration of stock as on 31-3-2003. Trade may be informed suitably that in the case the declared stock as on 31-3-2003 is kept in a place other than the registered/to be registered premises, the address of the said premise or premises where such stock is kept, must be declared by the assessee in the stock declaration". 7. There is no dispute in respect of goods which are lyi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l further instructions, no audit or preventive checks would be carried out with out specific intelligence and prior approval of Commissioner." 9. It is noticed that in respect of M/s. Elecon Fabrics when registration itself has taken place on 19-5-2003, the records of the assessee and the declarations filed by them were relied upon to extend the credit of goods which were lying as on 1-4-2003 at the factory premises. The dispute only relates to some portion of the goods, which were in transit. There is no dispute that the said goods have been received and utilized by the appellants. Private records including the subsequent returns filed by them indicates the details of such receipts and utilization. Inasmuch as the Board envisaged the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
