TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e documents submitted by the Appellants, it is found that there is no dispute that the goods have been received in the factory and accordingly the impugned order denying the CENVAT Credit in respect of the invoices is not correct. The substantive benefit cannot be denied on procedural grounds and accordingly the impugned orders cannot be sustained. The Appellants have vehemently fought on the issue of limitation. They pleaded that Show Cause Notice was issued on 01.08.2013 whereas the normal period expired much before that date. Further the Show Cause Notice was issued on the basis of audit of records maintained by the Appellant and therefore extended period cannot be invoked by alleging suppression since they are also submitting/filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of the goods was made at a place other than the factory. It is the case of the Revenue that credit was taken on the basis of ineligible documents which resulted in contravention of Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In their reply to the Show Cause Notice the Appellant submitted that the defects pointed out are technical and/or procedural lapses, but there is no dispute in respect of other things like duty paying character of the goods, receipt of the goods and utilization of the same in the manufacture of the finished products. It was their submission that technical lapses cannot stand in the way of extending the benefit to them. However, the Ld.Adjudicating authority vide Orderin- Original dated 03.07.2014 denied the credit and al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal [2017 (49) S.T.R. 159 (Tri.-Del.)]. He also filed copies of the monthly return filed under Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 wherein all the invoices have been accounted for. 3. Ld.Authorized Representative for the Department justified the impugned orders and prayed that the Appeal filed by the Appellant may be rejected being devoid of any merit. 4. Heard both sides and perused the Appeal records. 5. I find that the issue is no more res integra and is already settled in favour of the Appellant in various cases cited by them. It is undisputed that the goods covered under the invoices were actually received at the Appellant s factory and those goods were used for manufacture of their final pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
