9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d large numbers of capital goods and inputs through import as well as from indigenous sources. The capital goods/inputs were received directly at the factory site and were installed in the factory premises. They manufacture the final products viz., textile machinery and parts using the capital goods/inputs and take credit of the duty paid on these capital goods/inputs which were received by them. The appellants Project office was situated at Jayanagar until 1997 and shifted their project office from Jayanagar to Jigani in the year 1997. During the subsequent years, they conducted reconciliation of all the machineries received and the amount of credit that was availed. They also noticed that various documents pertaining to the capital goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant had neither filed the declaration under Rule 57Q bid nor followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 57T ibid; (ii) It is incumbent on the appellant to comply with the conditions of law to enjoy the benefits envisaged therein; (iii) The law does not bestow on the appellant the choice of enjoying rights without complying with their duties; (iv) The Asst. Commissioner has no power to condone the delay beyond three months in filing the declaration under Rule 57T ibid; (v) In the instant case, the appellant had not filed the declaration at all. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to avail the credit; (vi) The appellant has sought to avail the benefit of credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and to apply the provisions of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there is no dispute that the appellant is eligible for Cenvat credit and denial is only on the ground that there was no advance declaration for prior permission to avail credit and procedure contravention in the form of not filing declaration under Rule 57 can be condoned. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai vs. ITC Ltd. [2008 (224) E.L.T. 226 (Mad.) wherein Hon'ble High Court of Madras took the view that procedural lapse should not result in disallowing the credit and this decision was rendered applying Rule 57T of erstwhile Central Excise Act, 1944. In this case also, credit has been denied on the ground that provisions under Rules 57Q and 57T have not been followed. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
