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: (i) Whether CENVAT credit could be denied when the assessee held importer invoices but the bills of entry stood in the name of another entity and the originals were not available; (ii) whether CENVAT credit could be rejected on the ground of delay in availing it.
Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit could be denied when the assessee held importer invoices but the bills of entry stood in the name of another entity and the originals were not available.
Analysis: Rule 9(1)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules recognises specified documents on the basis of which credit may be taken. Clause (ii) specifically treats an invoice issued by an importer as an admissible document. Since the assessee possessed importer invoices showing the duty element on which credit was claimed, denial merely because the bills of entry were in another name and the originals were not available was not justified.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether CENVAT credit could be rejected on the ground of delay in availing it.
Analysis: The CENVAT Credit Rules did not prescribe any time-limit for availing credit in the circumstances of the case. In the absence of a stipulated statutory period, credit could not be disallowed solely on the ground of delay.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The denial of credit was unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to succeed on both grounds raised against it.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the prescribed rules recognise importer invoices as valid documents for CENVAT credit and no statutory time-limit is provided, credit cannot be denied on the basis of another name on the bill of entry or on mere delay in availment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
