9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive (DR), for the Respondent. ORDER Heard the parties. 2. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the discrepancy being in the nature of short availment of Cenvat credit due to accounting error and subsequent taking of such short credit is hit by the third proviso to Rule 4(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. The Learned Counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,875/- but due to clerical error credit was taken of Rs. 4,825/- on 21 May, 2015. On such error subsequently found, the differential amount of Rs. 50/- was taken as credit on 3 November, 2016. Similar issue of 34 invoices, in question, where admittedly credit was taken within a period of 60 days from the receipt of the invoice along with the goods. Only the credit found to be short taken, though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice shall not take Cenvat credit after one year of the date of issue of any of the documents specified in sub-rule (1) of Rule 9". 5. The Learned Counsel states that such credit is by way of rectification entry and is not a case of taking of Cenvat credit for first time as stated in Rule 4(1). Accordingly, she prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefit. She has also relied on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wever due to clerical error the credit was short availed. This fact is apparent on the face of record as demonstrated before this Tribunal. I hold that in case of such short credits subsequently taken, the third proviso to Rule 4(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules shall not be applicable. Accordingly I allow this appeal by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority setting aside the impugned order. The Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
