9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d taken 100% cenvat credit, and thus, the same is not permissible the authorities below have not addressed the issue properly in their respective orders. If the submissions of the Ld. Advocate are to be taken into consideration, then for receipt of the disputed goods in 2005, taking of cenvat credit in 2007 is in conformity with the cenvat statute. However, since this particular aspect has not been properly addressed the matter should be remanded back to the original authority for verification of the duty paid documents for ascertaining the fact regarding date of receipt of the capital goods and taking of cenvat credit. - Excise Cross Appeal No. E/Cross/210/2010 ,Excise Appeal No. E/1942/2010-E[SM] - Final Order No. 54000 /2015 - Dated:- 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia Cements Ltd. reported in 2012 (285) ELT 341 (Mad.) With regard to taking of 100% cenvat credit on the capital goods in respect of invoice No. 128301 dated 09.02.2005, the submission of the Ld. Advocate is that since, the year of receipt of the disputed goods was 2005-2006 and the credit was taken in next financial year i.e. 2007, taking of 100% cenvat credit is in conformity with the cenvat statute. 3. Per contra, Mrs. Kanu Verma Kumar, the Ld. DR for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records. 5. It is an admitted fact that the disputed goods were used as input for manufacture of machines/ machineries installed in the factory. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or ascertaining the fact regarding date of receipt of the capital goods and taking of cenvat credit. If the date of taking cenvat credit is not in the same financial year of receipt of the capital goods, then the credit shall be permissible to the appellant. 7. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order to the extent of denying cenvat credit on the impugned goods namely, MS CTD Bar, MS Rounds, TMT, Plates, MS Angles, Channels, Beams, Rails etc. is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant. With regard to taking of 100% cenvat credit in the year of receipt of capital goods, I allow the appeal by way of remand to the original authority for de-novo adjudication as per observations made vide paragraph 6 above. 8. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
