TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 890X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apital goods received in March, 2002 or prior to that, therefore credit details shown in the monthly return does not help the appellant that there is no suppression of facts particularly as regard to receipt and installation of the capital goods, therefore the extended period of demand correctly invoked. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/433/12 - A/85507/17/SMB - Dated:- 20-1-2017 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) Shri. Sachin Chitnis, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. S.V. Nair, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent Order The fact of the case is that appellant has availed Cenvat credit on capital goods in the month of March, 2002 which were received by them during the period from December, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) strongly submitted that credit was taken in the manufacture of March, 2002, whereas show cause notice was issued in the year 2005 therefore show cause notice invoking extended period is time bar. He placed reliance in case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises ltd Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex. Chandigarh[2004(176) ELT 541(Tri. Del.)]. 3. On the other hand, Shri. S.V. Nair, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 5. The fact of the case which is not under dispute is that appellant had received the capital goods during the year 2000-01 when they were worki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tallation of capital goods being only a deferred date of taking credit, for administrative reasons, credit is eligible on the date of receipt of the goods. In CCE v. Sengunthar Spinning Mills, 1998 (99) E.L.T. 409 , it was held that the availability of Modvat credit on capital goods has to be determined at the time of receipt of capital goods in the factory and if no modvat credit was available at that time, the question of subsequently making available any Modvat credit would not arise. 8. The recent decision of the Tribunal in CCE v. Precot Mills Ltd., 2007 (212) E.L.T. 483 follows the Surya Roshni decision and the Grasim Industries decision as well as the Sengunthar decision, to hold that the relevant date for determinati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 . In the light of the above discussion, we answer the reference by holding that Cenvat credit eligibility is to be determined with reference to the dutiability of the final product on the date of receipt of capital goods. 11. The papers are now returned to the referral Bench for further orders. From the answer given by the larger bench in the above judgment which is clear that the appellant at the time of receipt of the capital goods was not legally entitle for Cenvat credit therefore at later stage also they are not eligible for Cenvat credit on the capital goods. As regard the issue raised by the appellant on limitation, I find that appellant have availed cenvat credit in the month of March, 2002 and department was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
