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 permits Cenvat Credit after 3 years, rejects Revenue's appeal</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI IV Versus BOROSIL GLASS WORKS LTD</h3> The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision allowing the respondent to avail Cenvat Credit on inputs purchased after three years, rejecting ... Cenvat credit - Cenvat credit has been availed with inordinate delay - Held that:- In Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 there is no time period prescribed of taking the Cenvat Credit on inputs. In the case of SGS India Pvt. Ltd. (2011 (3) TMI 759 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) the issue came up before this Tribunal and the Tribunal held that Cenvat credit can be taken at any time after purchase of the goods. Further the case law cited by the learned A.R. has no relevance to the facts of the present case as in that case the assessee took the credit within one year of the purchase of the inputs and this Tribunal held that the credit is taken within a reasonable time. Therefore it does not mean that if the credit is not taken within one year it is not entitled to take credit. With these terms, I do agree with the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the respondents are entitled to take credit. Therefore the impugned order has no infirmity and the same is upheld. - Decided against Revenue. Issues:- Appeal against the order allowing Cenvat Credit taken on inputs after three years of purchase.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the availment of Cenvat Credit on inputs procured by the respondent after a significant delay of three years. The Revenue contended that as per Rule 4(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, such delayed credit should not be allowed. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that there was no specific time period prescribed for availing Cenvat Credit during the relevant period, and hence allowed the credit. This led to the Revenue challenging the decision before the Tribunal.The Appellate Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties, where the Revenue relied on the decision in the case of CCE vs. Mold-tek Technologies Ltd, emphasizing a reasonable period of one year for taking Cenvat Credit. Conversely, the respondent's counsel referred to the case of SGS India Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE, supporting the view that there is no strict time limit for availing the credit.Upon deliberation, the Tribunal observed that the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 did not specify any time limit for claiming Cenvat Credit on inputs. It distinguished the case cited by the Revenue, noting that the credit was taken within a year, which was considered reasonable in that context. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), stating that the respondents were entitled to avail the credit even after a delay of three years. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.In conclusion, the judgment clarifies that the absence of a specific time frame in the rules allows for flexibility in availing Cenvat Credit on inputs, and the decision to allow credit after a delay of three years was deemed appropriate based on the circumstances of the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
