TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the provisions of Rule 3(2) of CCR, 2004? - Held that: - No contrary evidence has been placed by the Revenue to show that these inputs were not in stock as on 03.12.2009 - in the absence of any contrary evidence led down by the department in support the allegation that the inputs on which credit taken by the appellant as on 03.12.2009 were not available in stock, the claim of the appellant, su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the exemption limit of ₹ 150 lakhs, they obtained Central Excise Registration on 03.12.2009 and availed CENVAT credit of ₹ 5,44,639/-, on the inputs lying in stock received against 24 invoices. Alleging that the appellant had availed said credit in contravention of Rule 3(2) of CCR, 2004, demand notice was issued on 17.06.2013 for recovery of the said credit of ₹ 5,44,639/- a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Column of the table, by mistake the date of receipt of the inputs was shown as 03.12.2009, but in fact it was the date of availing of the credit on crossing the exemption limit. He submits that they have adduced sufficient evidences before the authorities below by way of Chartered Engineers Certificate and other records and established the fact that these inputs were lying in stock as on 03.12.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant produced a Chartered Engineer s Certificate and the Return filed under Rule 7 of CCR, 2004, alongwith their ER-1 Return for the month of December 2009. The Revenue on the other hand did not accept the said contention of the appellant and disallowed the CENVAT credit. I have gone through the evidences about availability of inputs stock as on 03.12.2009 annexed at Page No. 138 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the absence of any contrary evidence led down by the department in support the allegation that the inputs on which credit taken by the appellant as on 03.12.2009 were not available in stock, the claim of the appellant, supported by evidence carries weight and acceptable. 6. In the result, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
