TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough it is lying in the factory, not used in the manufacture of final product and final product was not cleared on payment of duty, the credit can be taken immediately on receipt of the inputs. There is no bar provided in the Cenvat Credit Rules that within how much period credit should be taken. The Ld. Counsel invited out attention to the goods receipt note which bears the detail of transport such as Lorry Receipt number etc. Since these records were not before the Adjudicating Authority, he did not verify regarding receipt of the inputs. Ld. Commissioner gravely erred for the reason that if at all he wanted to see the LRs, he could have called for from the appellant which he failed to do so. Accordingly, Ld. Commissioner has grossly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- in the months of February 2014 to March 2014. On scrutiny of cenvat register maintained by the appellant wherein certain discrepancies noticed as in the column of type of document they made entries as B/L and B/E, in the column of number and date of document for certain entries they shown the name of the scheme as DEPB/FMS/ SHIS and in certain entries reflected the specific number of bill of entries. Further, in the column of type of supplier they have shown entry as exporter, manufacturer and first stage pertaining to the financial years 2007-2008 to 2013-2014. On further scrutiny, it was found that the appellant at the time of receipt of imported material i.e. during the period 2007-2008 to 2013-2014, on further scrutiny it was found t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ular whereby it was clarified that the credit in respect of duty debited in various duty credit scrips was not available under the same belief the credit was not taken however, subsequently when it was noticed that the credit is admissible on the duty debited under various duty credit scrips they have availed credit, hence, belatedly. Therefore, there is genuine reason for delay in taking credit. He further submits that during the relevant period no timeline prescribed under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for availment of credit. Therefore, on this ground, credit could not have been disallowed. He further, submit that the adjudicating authority decided the case mainly on the basis of verification report obtained from jurisdictional range off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission, he placed reliance on the following judgments: Steel Authority of India Ltd. 2013 (287) ELT 321 SGS India P. Ltd. 2011 (270) ELT 115 Transformerls Rectifiers 2010 (262) ELT 983 CCE vs Pierlite India Ltd. 2011 (273) ELT 535 CCE vs Lubi Electronics 2009 (245) ELT 551 Nila Baurat Engineering Ltd. 2016-TIOL-2550-CESTAT-MUM 3. Sh. J. Nagori, Ld. Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that as per the provision of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the assessee is required to take credit immediately on receipt of the inputs therefore, credit taken after 7 years cannot be permitted. As regard, the documents produced by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he credit can be taken immediately on receipt of the inputs. There is no bar provided in the Cenvat Credit Rules that within how much period credit should be taken. The limitation was brought in the statute by way of 3rd Proviso to Rule 4(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 only with effect from 01.09.2014 by Notification No. 21/2014 CE(NT) dated 11.07.2014 by which the time limit of one year from date of issue of the duty paying document was prescribed. This prescription of time limit itself makes it clear that before this proviso there was no time limit prescribed for the earlier period, therefore, in our considered view merely because the credit was belatedly taken, the same cannot be disallowed. This issue has already been considered by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudicating Authority, he did not verify regarding receipt of the inputs. We find that Ld. Commissioner gravely erred for the reason that if at all he wanted to see the LRs, he could have called for from the appellant which he failed to do so. Accordingly, Ld. Commissioner has grossly violated the principles of natural justice. Moreover, outcome of the verification report was not brought to the notice of the appellant. If this exercise would have been done by the Ld. Commissioner, the case could have been finally decided. Since the additional records such as LRs were produced before this tribunal and not before the Adjudicating authority, to this extent, the matter needs to be remanded. As regard the issue of limitation, we find that since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
