TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether CENVAT credit could be denied on imported inputs merely because the goods were cleared before filing all bills of entry and obtaining out of charge, some credit was availed later on the basis of assessed bills of entry or TR-6 challans, and prior approval of the jurisdictional Commissioner had not been obtained.
Analysis: The duty on the imported inputs had been paid in full, the inputs were used in the manufacture of final products cleared on payment of duty, and there was no evidence that the clearance was with intent to evade duty. The Tribunal found that the non-filing or delayed filing of some bills of entry was attributable to the department's refusal to accept them and not to fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression. It further held that there was no statutory bar against taking credit later, that the transitional protection under Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 preserved accrued credit rights, and that the absence of prior approval was only a technical objection. The High Court found these conclusions to be based on evidence and not shown to be perverse.
Conclusion: CENVAT credit could not be denied on the facts of the case, and the Revenue's challenge failed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
