TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the law is settled on the issue, there is no justification to deny the credit on the ground that it is availed after a long time. In any case, the Cenvat Credit Rules have not prescribed any outer time limit. – credit is allowed. - E/184/2008 - 1002/2008 - Dated:- 26-8-2008 - Dr. S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) Shri S. Muthu Venkataraman, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K. Sambi Reddi, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)].- This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.146/2007 (V-I) CE dated 31-12-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal) Visakhapatham. 2. Shri S. Muttu Venkataraman, the learned advocate, appeared on behalf of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onable' to stake their claim after more than five years when the word used is 'immediately'. (c) The facts involved in the case of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara, reported in 2007(208) E.L.T. 342 (LB) = 2008 (11) S.T.R. 431 (Tri.-LB) are not similar to the facts involved in the instant case. The case there was whether or not credit was available whereas here the issue is whether credit can be allowed when there is lapse of 3 to 7 years in availing the credit. Hence, the case law relied upon by the appellant is of no use to them. (d) Similarly in the case of CCE, Jaipur v Raghuvar India reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 311 (S.C.) the issue was with regard to eligibility of credit whereas in the case on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecifically enacted and prescribed therefore. It is not for the course to import any specific period of limitation by implication where there is really none. The Tribunal in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals v. CCE, Chennai reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 256 (Tri.) held that when there is no time limit prescribed, time limit should not be read by implication. The Tribunal in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 459 (Tri.-Del.) while considering the fact of taking Modvat credit after a period of 3 to 4 years from the date of issue of duty paid documents, which was disallowed by the lower authority held that there was no time limit prescribed for taking cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
