TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the case was decided in favor of appellant. The credit of ₹ 1,52,422/- rightly denied - invoices consigned to Essar Steel India Ltd., Chitrakonda - There is no indication that they have a registered manufacturing unit of Chitrakonda. Time bar - Held that: - the appellants have filed monthly ER-1 statements indicating the credits taken along with copies of the duty paying documents. As the photocopies of the duty paying documents were filed along with ER-1 Return, full details were in the knowledge of the department regarding various credits availed by the appellants. As such, we find that invoking extended period of demand in the present case is not legally sustainable. The impugned order not justifiable on merits as well a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the name of registered office/head office. In various decided cases, it has been held that credit cannot be denied in cases where the duty paying documents are addressed to the Head Office or other units of the company. 4. We find that a credit of ₹ 71,83,434/- was disallowed on the ground that the bills of entry reflects the address of the Vishakhapattanam unit of the appellant. For the reasons stated above, we find no justification in denying the credit. The duty paid nature, physical receipt and use of capital goods have not been disputed. 5. An amount of ₹ 20,76,384/- was disallowed on the ground that bills of entry reflects the name of the company which merged with the appellant. We note that there is no dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. We note that their submission during argument that the pumping station should be considered along with factory is not tenable. There is no indication that they have a registered manufacturing unit of Chitrakonda. Accordingly, the credit disallowed to this effect is sustainable. 7. Overall, we find that the denial of various credits was mainly on the ground of documents bearing the appellant s head office address or another manufacturing unit s address of the appellant. We find that the various decided cases are in favour of the appellant on this issue. Specific reference can be made to the case of Larsen Toubro Limited -1994 (72) ELT 948 (Tribunal), Marmagoa Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2005 (192) ELT 82 (Bombay) and 2008 (229) ELT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
