9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 858X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission their appeal also disposed of by this tribunal. According they have taken the Cenvat Credit after disposal of the appeal there is nothing survive in the department s case. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The allegation of time limitation was not made in the show cause notice. Therefore, the appellant cannot be expected to make any presentation on the issue which was not raised in the show cause notice. Secondly, it is admitted fact that the appellant have taken the Cenvat Credit of ISD invoice and in case of ISD invoice no time limit has been prescribed. It is a settled law that if the invoice is of dated prior to amendment inserting the 1 year time limit, in such case the limitation on 1 year shall not apply, for this reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay, 2019, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected vide impugned order. Hence the present appeal. 2. Shri Mehul Jiwani, Learned Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant have taken the Cenvat Credit on the strength of ISD invoices issued by the head office. He submits that even though the refund claim was filed but the same was rejected and subsequently on the issue of refund Tribunal in their appeal, vide Final Order No. A/10419-10423/2018 dated 28.02.2018 disposed of the appeal as infructuous on the ground that the appellant have taken the Cenvat Credit. He submits that since the issue of refund does not exist and the appellant refund stand rejected, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-1-2019 (5) TMI 1432- DELHI HIGH COURT SOPARIWALA EXPORTS PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., VADODARA-I -2013(291) E.L.T.70 (Tri.-Ahmd.) ICMC CORPORATION LTD. Vs. CESTAT, CHENNAI-2014 (302) E.L.T.45 (Mad.) S.SUBRAHMNYAN CO. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., VADODARA-2011 (3) TMI 396-CESTAT, AHMEDABAD 3. Shri Vinod Lukose, Learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that appellant have taken suo-moto credit despite they were pursuing the refund before this tribunal therefore, during that period the appellant were not eligible for taking credit. 4. I have carefully considered the submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
