9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t prior to 01.09.2014, there was no such time limit prescribed under the statute - The said period of limitation has further been amended vide Notification No. 06/2015 with the time of ‘one year’ replacing the time of ‘six months’ and both the Notifications would cover the period of dispute involved in this case, which is September, 2014 to June, 2015 - it is also not the case of Revenue that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C of the Act. The appellant rebutted the proposals made in the above Show Cause Notice, vide its letter dated 28.11.2016, but the adjudicating authority not being convinced, confirmed the proposed demands including interest and penalty vide Order-in-Original dated 24.03.2017. 2.1 With regard to the adjudicating authority s proposal (i) above, it is the case of the Revenue that the appellant had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR) appeared for the Revenue. 4. I have heard the rival contentions, perused the records and have gone through the decisions referred to during the course of arguments. 5. On a perusal of the impugned Order as well as the Order-in- Original and also the Show Cause Notice, I find that the rejection or denial is made not on the basis of the invoices being invalid or illegal otherwise or that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Pune-I reported in [2018-TIOL- 2455-CESTAT-MUM] wherein after considering the pleadings, the Bench has concluded as under : 6. The short issue involved in the present appeal is whether there is delay in availing the credit on the invoices/challan beyond the period prescribed under Rule 4(7) of CENVAT Credit Rules, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
