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

2016 (7) TMI 1027 - CESTAT KOLKATA

2016 (7) TMI 1027 - CESTAT KOLKATA - TMI - 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ain such credit taken upon receipt of the goods 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. Appell .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ess of the documents is not questioned by Revenue. 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

entertain claim of the appellant. On the second 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 s .....

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