9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inputs lying in stock or in process or contained in final product lying in stock on the date they started paying duty. In the present case, related inputs were admittedly received and used during 2004-05 itself. It is not the appellant's case that inputs were still lying in stock one way or the other when they graduated to payment of duty during 2005-06. The appellants have also argued that there is no time limit for taking CENVAT credit. I find that this right of the appellants can be allowed to be exercised to the extent such exercise is not inconsistent with provisions of Rule 11(2) and 3(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In the present situation, availment of credit as claimed by the appellants shall infringe on the operation of Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who also dismissed the appeal of the appellant and hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed contrary to the statutory provisions. He further submitted that the appellants received inputs under Invoice No.497/15.10.2004; No.12856/15.10.2004; No.3990/19.10.2004; No.4039/21.10.2004 and No.7033/22.03.2005 during the period when they were paying excise duty on their final products. The appellant was eligible to avail the credit of the duty paid on inputs during period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the Commissioner (A) has come to the conclusion that the appellant has violated the Rule 11 (2) of the CCR. It is pertinent to reproduce the relevant para in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A) wherein the Commissioner (A) has given the reasons for rejecting the appeal of the appellant. The appellants took and used CENVAT credit during August 2005 in respect of input which were received and used during the previous year 2004-05. The credit was not taken and used during 2004-05. The adjudicator has argued that since the appellant opted for SSI exemption under Notification No.8/2003 dated 1.3.2003 with effect from 1.4.2005 any credit remaining in balance on 31.3.2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
