TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sted by the Range Superintendent of the supplier’s end and has established beyond doubt that the duty stands paid on the goods and the goods stand received by him - credit allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL NO: E/85869/2013 - A/86275/2018 - Dated:- 1-5-2018 - Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Ms Mansi Patil, Advocate for appellant Shri MR Melvin, Superintendent (AR) for respondent Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-I has, vide, order-in-appeal no. P-I/MMD/217/2012 dated 12th November 2012, confirmed disallowance by original authority of credit of `2,96,640 availed on invoice issued by other unit of the appellant, M/s Poona Automation, before they had got themselves registere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prevent availment of double credit in case the Appellants recover the original document, insist for an undertaking or indemnity bond from the Appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) therefore set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority and allowed the application. and on the decision of the Tribunal in Lona Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad [2016 (42) STR 362 (Tri- Mumbai)] which has held that 6. After hearing both the sides and perusal of the records, I find that the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 do not prescribe any time limit for taking the credit. If the credit is admissible and the documents for availing the credit are available, credit can be taken at any time. The Cenvat Credit Rules do not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices issued by M/s. Kalyani Brakes Ltd., Jalgaon. Just because in order to avoid unnecessary transportation, the brake assemblies purchased by the respondent from M/s. Kalyani Brakes Ltd., Jalgaon were sent directly to M/s. Spicer India Ltd., Pune, the cenvat credit cannot be denied to the respondents as there is no dispute about the fact that the brake assemblies were ultimately received in the respondent s factory alongwith rear/front axles and were used in the manufacture of finished goods. Besides this, we also agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the demand is time barred as longer period of limitation is not available to the department for the reason there is nothing to indicate that the respondents had any inten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
