GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 226 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

2016 (6) TMI 226 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD - TMI - Disallowance of Cenvat or modvat credit - credit availed after more than 6 months of the date of document - Held that:- The appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit and the same cannot be denied on the ground that Cenvat credit have been availed after more than 6 months of the date of document, as the documents are dated prior to 26/06/95 when the period of 6 months was introduced. It have also been so held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghuva .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

75 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with all supportings. They want to rely and seek an opportunity of hearing. - Ex. Appeal No.1285/03 - Dated:- 22-4-2016 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Rajesh Chibbar, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Ashutosh Nath, Asstt.Commr. (A.R.) ORDER PER MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY : Appellant is in appeal against order in appeal dated 10/3/2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Ghaz .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r for denovo decision, observing that the impugned order is deficient as the procedure followed does not satisfy the minimum requirement of a well considered adjudication order as 6 show cause notices on different points were clubbed together. 3. Pursuant to remand vide Order-in-Original dated 1/12/99 the Asstt. Commissioner allowed the credit on four items amounting to ₹ 4,02,966/- observing that the Bills of Entry were issued before 1/4/94 but endorsed after 1/9/94. Relying on CBEC circu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ored. Further observed that the Central Excise Act under Section 11 A and 11 B clearly prescribed the limit of 6 months for taking and granting. Accordingly, it was held that time limit of six months is applicable for availing Cenvat or modvat credit. Accordingly the credit was denied. With respect to bill of entry number 1239/23 dated 2/5/94, observing that the same is neither issued in the name of the party nor endorsed to the party and also the party have not put any defence in this regard th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

there was no limitation prescribed under Rule 57G for taking credit but modvat credit shall be taken within a reasonable time and the Asst Commissioner have rightly denied the credit relying on the ruling of this Tribunal in Andhra Electro Galvanizing Works Vs. CCE 1995 (80) ELT 322. Regarding taking of credit against bill of entry which is not in the name of the appellant nor endorsed in their favour, it was observed that Rule 57G of CER 1944 prescribes bill of entry as valid document for takin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ime limit is applicable and further relies on the ruling of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. Raghuvar (India) Ltd. 2000 (118) ELT 311 (SC) wherein the Apex Court considered the issue of recovery of modvat credit, availed under rule 57I, held that the provisions of section 11 A of the act have no application to any action taken under rule 57I, prior to its amendment on 6/10/1988 and further held Rule 57I, is not in any manner subject to section 11 A ibid. It .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

there is some clerical error as this number 1239/23 is the IGM number dated 2/5/94. A copy of the declaration form along with the copy of the way bill in Form number 31 (issued under the provisions of U. P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948) it is stated that from these documents it is evident that the appellant had duly purchased the goods from the importers who is located at Delhi, and further the receipt of goods in the factory of the appellant is corroborated by the pre-authenticated way bills issued by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t is available. He further stated, with effect from4/7/94 when provision of registration for dealer have been made, no credit can be taken on the basis of endorsement and it can only be taken on proper invoice issued by the manufacturers/dealers. He further relies on the larger bench ruling of this Tribunal in the case of Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur 2000 (116) ELT 364 Wherein in it is held that after and issuance of notification number 32/94 - CE dated .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

GG and Rule 174 requiring the registration of the dealer's dealing with excisable goods would stand nullified if these are taken to be only procedural and not mandatory Further it was held that invoices can be issued only by registered dealer after issuance of notification number 32/94 and only then the Modvat credit can be claimed on the strength of the same in respect of the goods mentioned by the end user and not otherwise. He also relies on the ruling of Madras High Court in the case of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version