TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1010X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b Rule 3 of the said Rules. The Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad vs Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (2000 (10) TMI 93 - CEGAT, CHENNAI) held that time limit of 6 months from the date of issue of duty paying document applied to receipt of goods in the factory and not to the process of taking the credit. - Decided in favour of assessee - Appeal No. : E/476/2010 - Order No. A/11886 / 2015 - Dated:- 4-12-2015 - MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Petitioner : Shri S. R. Dixit, Advocate For the Respondent Shri N. Satwani, Authorised Representaive ORDER PER: P.K. DAS The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Reduction Gears and Parts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal by order No. A/S-5/WZB/C-III, dtd 24.03.2004 (M/s. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Vadodara) allowed the appeal. Revenue filed appeal before Hon ble Gujarat High Court. By Judgement dated 23.09.2005 in Tax Appeal No. 415/2004, the Hon ble Gujarat High Court dismissed by the appeal filed by the Revenue. He further submits that on the identical issue, the Tribunal consistently viewed that the time limit of 6 months from the date of issue for duty paying document applied to receipt of the inputs in the factory and not to the process of taking the credit. It is submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad vs Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. 2001 (127) E.L.T. 786 (Tri.-C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise, Hyderabad vs Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. 2001 (127) E.L.T. 786 (Tri.- Chennai) held that time limit of 6 months from the date of issue of duty paying document applied to receipt of goods in the factory and not to the process of taking the credit. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:- 4. On a careful consideration of the submissions and material on record, we find that - (a) The credit has been taken initially on 23-6-1996 and (a) 14-12-1996 and thereafter it was reversed on 31-12-1996 and 18-2-1997 in the other case. Thereafter, they took up the matter with the concerned Custom House and obtained the relevant documents i.e. Bill of Entry to take the credit which could be obtained by them only on 14-2-1997 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal. 5. The Tribunal in the appellant s own case for the earlier period following the decision of the Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (supra) allowed the appeal. The relevant portion of the said decision dated 24.03.2004 is reproduced below:- After hearing both the sides and on considering the issue of eligibility of credit in Part-II in this case taken on 30/11/95 and Part-I taken on 26/4/95 and 28/4/95 is not barred by the limitation of 6 months as BE dt.4/4/95 and 23/3/95 and the issue is well covered by the decision of Aurobindo pharmaceutical Ltd. 2001 (127) ELT 786. The appeal is taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides and after waiving pre-deposit and allowed following the above decision. Revenue filed appeal aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd no appeal was filed before the Hon ble High Court. In the appellants own case, the Hon ble Gujarat High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal on the identical situation. So, there is no reason to take different view in the present appeal. 7. The Learned Authorised Representative relied upon the decision of the Single Member Bench in the case of Panjon Ltd. (supra). In that case, there is no statement that the appellant received the goods within a period of 6 months and recorded their RG23A Pt.I register. Hence the said case laws is not applicable in the present facts of the case. 8. In view of the above discussions, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set-aside. The appeal filed by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
