Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (4) TMI 149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ay. The Rule does not provide for denial of credit if the credit has been taken not immediately as interpreted in the aforesaid decision. In fact, the Circular issued by CBEC specifically states that such interpretation as arrived at in the impugned Order based on the aforesaid decision of the CESTAT, is not tenable. In other words, the Circular issued by the Board specifically states that even if the manufacturer does not take credit as soon as the inputs are received, credit cannot be denied for that reason alone - E/1168/2008 - S/156/2009-WZB/C-II/(EB), - Dated:- 24-4-2009 - S/Shri A.K. Srivastava, Member (T) and Ashok Jindal, Member (J) Shri V. Sridharan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri A.K. Prasad, Jt. CDR, for the Respo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 0-TRU, dated 29-8-2000, has clarified as under: "10. Rule 57AC provides that CENVAT credit may be taken immediately on receipt of inputs in the factory. Some apprehensions have been expressed that if the CENVAT credit is not taken "immediately", like within 24 hours or so, the field officers may deny the CENVAT credit. The idea is that if the manufacturer desires he can take the CENVAT credit at the earliest opportunity when the inputs are received in the factory. This however, does not mean, nor is it even intended that if the manufacturer does not take credit as soon as the inputs are received in the factory, he would be denied the benefit of CENVAT credit. Such an interpretation is not tenable". The CBEC itself has thus clarified tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... taken in March and April 2001 i.e. soon after the receipt of the full consignment of inputs into the factory. In this view of the matter, we hold that credit is admissible to the appellants and hence set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal without recording any finding on the other pleas raised before us such as the restriction in Rule 57G(5) being inapplicable to credit taken on the strength of Bill of Entry which is not a document issued, and that the relevant date for computing the six months period is 10-1-01 which is the date on which SAD was paid etc". 7. The CESTAT in the case of Essar Steels Ltd. v. CCE [2008 (222) E.L.T. 154 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] in para 10 held as under :- "10....... Even otherwise, it is seen that am .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dit. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Raghuvar (India) Ltd. reported in 2000 (38) RLT 777 (S.C.) = 2000 (118) E.L.T. 311 (S.C.) that any law or stipulation prescribing a period of limitation to do or not to do a thing after the expiry of period so stipulated has a consequence of creation and destruction of right and therefore specifically enacted and prescribed therefor. It is not for the Court to import any specific period of limitation by implication where there is really none. The Tribunal in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals v. CCE, Chennai reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 256 (Tri.) held that when there is no time limit prescribed, time limit should not be read by implication. The Tribunal in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cision of the Single Member Bench of the CESTAT in the case of J.V. Strips v. CCE (supra) is also contrary to the Two Member Bench decisions of the CESTAT in the case of Essar Steels Limited (supra) and Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. (supra). 10.1 The Single Member Bench in the case of J.V. Strips v. CCE (supra) has tried to interpret the term 'immediately on receipt of the inputs" as appearing in the provisions of Rule 4(1) to mean that the credit should be taken within reasonable time excluding the avoidable delay. The Rule does not provide for denial of credit if the credit has been taken not immediately as interpreted in the aforesaid decision. In fact, the Circular issued by CBEC specifically states that such interpretation as arrived .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates