TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Appeal dismissed for non-compliance with Cenvat Credit Rules</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's non-compliance with the Cenvat Credit Rules, specifically Rule 3(5), regarding the timely return ... Seeking time for submission of Reconciliation Statement - Contravention of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Appellant did not provide information to the tribunal after so much of adjournments - Held that: BSNL availed Cenvat credit on capital goods as has been described in para 2 of the review order. The revisionary authority noticed that when the capital goods were acquired by the BSNL for installation at the customers’ premises to provide output service that did not come back to its premises within the stipulated period of 180 days. That resulted in contravention of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Also BSNL did not seek permission for extension of time beyond 180 days. Therefore, no further time is provided. - Decided against the appellant Issues: Appeal against review order regarding contravention of Cenvat Credit Rules.Issue 1: Lack of Compliance and AdjournmentsThe appellant repeatedly sought adjournments to provide necessary documentation and information but failed to comply with the Tribunal's requests. The appellant's delays and failure to submit the required calculation sheet and receipt details led to multiple adjournments, causing unnecessary delays in the proceedings.Issue 2: Contravention of Cenvat Credit RulesThe appeal arose from a review order where it was found that the appellant had contravened Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant availed Cenvat credit on capital goods but failed to return them to its premises within the stipulated 180 days, as required by the rules. Additionally, the appellant did not seek permission for an extension of time beyond the prescribed period. These actions constituted a violation of the law, as highlighted by the revisionary authority.Issue 3: Dismissal of AppealThe Tribunal, after considering the contravention of the Cenvat Credit Rules and the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, concluded that the revisionary authority's order was legally sound. The Tribunal found no legal infirmity in the decision to dismiss the appeal based on the appellant's failure to comply with the rules and seek the necessary extensions as required by law.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's non-compliance with the Cenvat Credit Rules, specifically Rule 3(5), regarding the timely return of capital goods and seeking permission for extensions. The lack of documentation, repeated adjournments, and failure to provide necessary details led to the dismissal of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
