Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. Versus Commr. of Central Excise, JSR

2016 (7) TMI 1027 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Availing cenvat credit after 6 months from the date of receipt - Held that:- it does not appeal to common sense how the genuine credit available should be denied when appellant shows that every claim was within six months of receipt of subsequent invoice and scheme of modvat is that credit is allowable when the goods are received in the factory. - credit cannot be denied. - Excise Appeal No. 116/2007 - Final Order No. FO/A/75546/2016 - Dated:- 11-7-2016 - SHRI D.N. PANDA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHR .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oods on removal of the said defect. Revenue raised dispute on taking of such credit subsequently on the ground that the same was not taken within 6 months of receipt of the goods originally and reference to earlier document was made. Further, according to Revenue, allegation is that limitation of 6 months shall be counted from the date of original invoice but not from the date of the subsequent invoice issued upon removal of defects in the goods. Appellant explained that the alleged disallowance .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

evenue. Nor the claim of Modvat credit remained in dispute. But the only question raised by Revenue is that the limitation of 6 months period to take credit on subsequent invoice has to be reckoned from the date of original invoice and not from the subsequent invoice date. But such proposition of Revenue is contrary to law. 3. The second demand of ₹ 2,09,698.27 relates to the cases covered by page 36 of the paper book at ANNEXURE G to the SCN. In respect of each of the invoices, technical .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cond count of demand, it is explained by the Revenue that the defects pointed out are genuine as is apparent from page 36 of the paper book. These are substantial in nature for which the appellant should not get any relief. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. So far as the first count of demand is concerned, it does not appeal to common sense how the genuine credit available should be denied when appellant shows that every claim was within six months of receipt of subsequent invoice .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version