TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the period, December, 2000 to February, 2002, the respondent received 16 consignments of Hexane on which Basic Excise duties and Special Excise duties were paid, but the respondent took credit of only the Basic Excise duties aggregating to Rs. 3,72,449/- on account of a bona fide impression that credit of only basic duty was available because SED was not available for discharge of duty on the respondent's final products. During the March, 2002 to January, 2003, the Special Excise duty was not availed as credit in respect of 22 consignments of Hexane on the same plea. Subsequently, on 21-2-2003, the respondent took credit of Special Excise duties aggregating to Rs. 3,72,449/- and Rs. 4,87,024/- for all the above 16 and 22 consignments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely" is that there should not be inordinate delay in availing Cenvat credit but in this case appellant has not taken the credit of only special excise duty immediately on receipts of inputs in the factory although they accounted all the inputs in their account properly. Under the wrong impression of their excise clerk that the special excise duty was not available to them because, this special excise duty is not leviable on their final product. In the case of M/s. Stress Crete Pvt. Ltd., v. Union of India [2000 (119) E.L.T. 542 (MP)] the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that when the Rule does not prescribe any time limit, credit cannot be denied. Further it appears that it is a procedural lapse, hence Cenvat credit cannot be denied wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing their mistake and on finding out that the same was available for the discharge of the Basic Excise duty on their final product, they availed credit. As the inputs had already been received by them, and the invoices were available with them, it is only a paper accounting which was required to be done and was done subsequently. In this scenario, there is no chance of any manipulation and wrong availment of credit. This has also been ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Crystal Cable Industries Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Excise, Kolkata II reported in 2003 (159) E.L.T. 465 (Tri.-Kolkata) and in the case of Stresscrete Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 542 (MP). As such, I am of the view that there is no in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
