TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether delay in filing D-3 intimation under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 justified denial of proforma credit, and whether the delay could be condoned in the facts of the case.
Analysis: The credit was not found to be a case of wrong credit arising from error, omission, or misconstruction on the part of the officer, and the demand was not properly referable to Rule 56A(3)(v) or Rule 56A(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. At the same time, the Tribunal held that non-compliance with the time limit for D-3 intimation did not automatically entitle the assessee to retain credit, because the taking of credit without proper intimation was not authorised. Considering the nature of the goods, the processing undertaken before rubber lining, and the relaxation indicated by Trade Notice No. 191/84 permitting condonation of late D-3 intimations in suitable cases, the delay was treated as fit for condonation.
Conclusion: The delay in filing the D-3 intimation was condoned and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the procedural lapse in filing D-3 intimation is satisfactorily explained and the circumstances show substantial observance of the Rule 56A procedure, the delay may be condoned and proforma credit cannot be denied merely on account of late intimation.
TaxTMI 
