9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of credit of Rs. 16,157/- and Rs. 1930/- was not correct. (ii) He also found that Sl. No. 13 of the Annexure to the show cause notice was an admitted case by the appellant that credit of Rs. 54,474/- was obtained and availed on their 'own invoice' which was issued in the name of their buyer, the provisions of Rule 173H or 173L or 57F were not followed. The submission of the appellants that the clearances were under Rule 57F to their buyers and goods were then received back was not permitted as covered by any Rules for availment of credit. That could not therefore be considered as procedural lapse, which can be condoned. Hence credit was denied. 2. After hearing the both sides and considering the submissions, I find that - (a) Credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered the submissions of the SDR relying on the decision in the case of Kusum Ingots Alloys Ltd. reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 214 wherein it was held that availment of credit crucial event determining the admissibility of credit and not the act of taking credit. Rule 57A amendment provides that credit after 6 months of the date of issue of any document will not be eligible. I find that in this case the documents which entitle the appellant to avail the credit was the permission of Asstt. Collector communicated to them on 29-9-95, and not the original lost, duplicate invoice. Therefore there was no delay on the part of the appellant in availing credit to attract the embargo of Rule 57G. Credit would be eligible. (c) As regards the elig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be a prescribed document to avail credit. I do not find therefore any reason to deny the credit of Rs. 54,474/- to the appellant in this case. I find force in the submission of the SDR that the removal of inputs as such were to follow particular procedure as prescribed under the goods, however not following the procedure in as much as classification on price lists intimation, etc was not followed can lead to penal consequences on the appellant but not denial of Modvat credit if it is eligible. I find that no penalty has been imposed in this case. Therefore there is no case for denial of credit. 3. In view of my findings, the order impugned are set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
