9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the course of verification of records of appellants by the departmental officers, it was found that appellants had taken CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 20,55,937/- in the month of March 2013 as opening balance with no supporting documents. On being pointed out, it was stated that the said amount represented the amount of CENVAT credit balance as on 01.02.2012 which were in the books of accounts of M/s Ushodaya Enterprises (P) Ltd., (here-in-after referred as 'UEPL') which was wound up and a part of which merged with the appellant's company and the remaining parts merged with two other companies viz., M/s Prism T.V. Private Limited and M/s Panorama Television (P) Limited. On further verification of records, it was found that M/s Ushodaya Ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irmed that no invoices were come on record. The First Appellate Authority to arrive at a conclusion that the respondent is eligible for 20,55,937/-. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent draws the attention of the Bench to the fact that the entire case records were called for by the First Appellate Authority which were produced, along with the copies of the invoices and the amount of Rs. 20,55,937/- recorded in the books of accounts of M/s Ushodaya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., as receivables towards to respondent herein. He would also draw my attention to the judgement of Hon'ble High Court in the demerger order, specifically to the portion that recognized of Rs. 20,55,937/- CENVAT credit available to M/s Ushodhaya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... books. The credit available to UEPL being rightly and legally entitled to the successor-appellants the only question, therefore, to be examined in this regard is limited to whether the action of the appellant to take such credit belatedly was legally right since the invoices pertained to the period from the year 2008 onwards and there was lapse of considerable time. In this regard, it is observed that the restriction as regards time limit within which credit of tax paid should have been taken by the person eligible to take credit was introduced in Rule 4 of CCR 2004 only with effect from 01.09.2014. Therefore, there was no legal restriction on the appellant taking the credit of tax on such invoices even if the act of taking credit was delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch factual situation, I am of the considered view that the appellant's legal right to credit of Rs. 20,55,937/- as successor to the related business of UEPL taken over by them cannot be denied on the ground of procedural infirmity of non-filing of application under Rule 10(3) of CCR 2004 and the credit taken, therefore, has to be held to be validly accrued and taken by the appellants." 7. In my view, the above reproduced findings of the First Appellate Authority are in accordance with the law and as per the facts of the case in hand. Further, I find that the First Appellate Authority has also held in favour of the respondent on the question of limitation, is also correct as details were available with the Department when returns were file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
