9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) in year 1997. They did not challenge the lapse of such credit thereby accepting the compliance with the said Rule. It is only after 9 years that they availed credit suo moto which is bad in law. When the lapse of the credit was not challenged by them and they accepted the lapse of credit in that case they could not have taken suo moto credit. Therefore they are not entitled for the credit. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tilized in the books of accounts was not held to be available in terms of Rule 57F (17) (b) w.e.f 01.03.1997. The Appellant thus did not carry forward credit of ₹ 1,35,41,134/-. Thereafter they come across the judgment of the Tribunal in case of Kopran Ltd. - 2006 (72) RLT 719 wherein the unutilized credit was allowed. The Appellant on the basis of said judgment availed the credit of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T 3 (SC) (ii) Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. - 2012 (26) STR 204 (kar) (iii) Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd. - 2014 (310) ELT 509 (Mad.) (iv) GTL Infra. Ltd. - 2015 (37) STR 577 (TRI) (v) B Girijapathi Reddy & Co. - 2016 (344) ELT 923 (TRI) (vi) Garden Silk Mills Ltd. - 2016 (332) ELT 820 (TRI) (vii) T. V. Sundaram - 2015 (330) ELT 333 (TRI) (viii) Savio (India) Ltd. - 2016 (340) ELT 735 (TRI) 3. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titled for the credit and we hold so. As far as payment of interest is concerned we find that the Appellant has utilized the portion of credit which was availed in the year 2006. During the said period the Rule 14 provided for payment of interest in case where the credit was taken or utilized wrongly. We find that the appellant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
