9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no time limit during which credit had to be taken on duty paid documents. In the absence of any allegation of fraud or that the documents on which the credit was availed was not proper or that the inputs were not at all used for the manufacture of the final product, the credit cannot be denied. Procedural issues like the ER1 returns being belatedly filed etc. should not come in the way of substantial justice, when the law does not bar such a relief. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer speaking for a Division Bench in State of Punjab Anr. Vs. Shamlal Murari Anr. [ 1975 (10) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT ] had held ' We must always remember that processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. It has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter dated 14.2.2012, the department informed the appellant that the credit taken beyond October 2007 is not eligible for transfer as the unit at Chrompet had stopped production and was merged with Appur unit. An amount of Rs.12,44,192/- lying unutilized in CENVAT account was permitted to be transferred to Appur unit but the remaining amount of Rs.8,49,316/- was not permitted to be transferred for the reason that they involved service tax credits taken after the closure of operations in their Chrompet unit and that ER1 returns informing availment of such credits in November 2007 was filed after a lapse of one and a half year i.e. June 2009. Aggrieved by the said letter dated 14.2.2012, the appellant preferred appeal before the appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT credit for service taxes paid for various services provided when there were manufacturing activities in their Chrompet factory. The Ld. Counsel submitted that there was no stipulation that transfer of CENVAT credit and continuance of manufacturing activities should co exist. In support of the Appellant's contention that in respect of the credit taken in the month of Nov.2007, no time was applicable, he relied upon the following judgments wherein it was categorically held that CENVAT credit due to a manufacturer of final products cannot be denied on grounds of time limit. 1. Neon News Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE ST, Agra 2019 (20) GSTL 24 2. Vijay Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd. 2019 (25) GSTL 447 3. India Potash Ltd. Vs. CGST, Meerut 2019 (36 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s availed was not proper or that the inputs were not at all used for the manufacture of the final product, the credit cannot be denied. Procedural issues like the ER1 returns being belatedly filed etc. should not come in the way of substantial justice, when the law does not bar such a relief. In the context, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer speaking for a Division Bench in State of Punjab Anr. Vs. Shamlal Murari Anr. [(1976) 1 SCC 719] had observed succinctly, 8. We must always remember that processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. It has been wisely observed that procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice. 5. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
