TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds CENVAT credit decision despite Revenue appeal</h1> <h3>COMMR. OF C. EX., CHENNAI Versus AMALGAMATIONS VALEO CLUTCH (P) LTD.</h3> The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to allow CENVAT credit to the respondents, amounting to Rs. 4,79,183/-, despite the Revenue's appeal ... Cenvat/Modvat - Limitation Issues:1. CENVAT credit denial under Rule 57G(5) of Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Validity of taking credit based on photocopies of Bills of Entry.3. Applicability of the decision in CCE v. BPL Ltd. on the present case.Analysis:1. The appeal by the Revenue challenged the allowance of CENVAT credit to the respondents amounting to Rs. 4,79,183/-, which was initially denied due to the expiry of six months from the date of payment of CVD as per Rule 57G(5) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Revenue contended that the respondents availed credit after the specified time limit and only possessed photocopies of Bills of Entry, which was insufficient for claiming credit.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) permitted the CENVAT credit by relying on a Tribunal decision in CCE v. BPL Ltd. The Commissioner noted that the goods were received and utilized by the manufacturer, even though the MODVAT copy of the Bill of Entry was lost. The Commissioner emphasized that the application for a certificate within six months from the Bill of Entry date was made, but no proper certificate was issued by Customs authorities. Referring to the decision in CCE v. BPL Ltd., it was concluded that if the loss of the Bill of Entry copy was reported and the application for a certificate was submitted within six months, credit could not be denied even without the certificate issuance, as long as goods receipt was confirmed.3. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to demonstrate any overruling of the Tribunal decision relied upon by the Commissioner or obtaining a stay order from a higher judicial forum. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, stating no grounds for interference and sustaining the allowance of CENVAT credit to the respondents. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected, affirming the decision based on the precedent and lack of contrary legal developments.This comprehensive analysis outlines the key issues raised in the legal judgment and the detailed reasoning behind the Tribunal's decision to uphold the allowance of CENVAT credit to the respondents based on the specific circumstances and legal interpretations presented in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
