2013 (3) TMI 1

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed penalties. Appeal no. E/792/11 is filed whereby the demand is confirmed after denying the credit of Rs.33,00,548/- along with interest and against the imposition of penalty. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter headings 38 & 39 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants are availing CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs received in the factory and used in the manufacture of final product. In appeal no. E/1168/08 the appellant availed the credit of Rs.4,45,65,219/- during the period October 2006 to November 2006 in respect of the inputs received in their factory during the period April 2004 to September 2006. Similarly, in appeal no. E/792/11, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the case of Philips India Ltd. vs. CCE 2007 (213) ELT 584 and after relying upon the above mentioned Board's Circular, held that if the manufacturer has not taken credit immediately on receipt of the goods, the manufacturer cannot be deprived from taking the credit later on. The Tribunal further held that if the manufacturer has not taken credit immediately, it is affecting the manufacturer, not the Revenue. The appellants also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Transformers & Rectifiers vs. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in 2010 (252) ELT 983 to submit that the Tribunal while interpreting the provisions of Rule 4(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, allowed the credit which was availed after one year from the date of receipt of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anufacturer does not take the credit as soon as the inputs are received in the factory, he would be denied the benefit of CENVAT credit. The Board has also observed that such interpretation is not sustainable. The Tribunal in the case of Pierlite India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in 2010(250)ELT 49(T) and in the case of Lubi Electronics (supra) relied upon by the appellants, held that no time limit for taking credit is provided in the CENVAT Credit rules, Similarly, the Tribunal in the case of SGS India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), after relying upon the Board's Circular dated 29.08.2000, held that if the manufacturer has not taken credit immediately on receipt of the goods, the manufacturer cannot be deprived of taking of the credit. 9.....