2006 (7) TMI 115

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ering the issue raised in the question, the Tribunal has considered this aspect as under: "(g) We find that there is no provisions under the Central Excise Act or the Rules which prescribes a period within which credit of duty paid on the capital goods should be entered as taken in the register maintained. The intention of the Commissioner therefore for denying this credit cannot be upheld. In fact, it is found that Circular No. 199/33/96-CX, dated 23-4-1996 clarifies that time limit of six months prescribed in 2nd proviso to Rule 57G will not apply to availment of credit on capital goods under Rule 57-I and these instructions have been issued by the Board in consultation with the Ministry of Law. The Tribunal in the case of Surya Prabha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... It is found that the provisions of Rule 7(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 are not applicable in the present case as payment of duty was subsequent to a failure of export obligations requirement and the finding of the Commissioner that the appellants knew at the time of making an application for EPCG Licence that they will not meet the export obligation, is a finding which is not supported by any basis and on records. In absence of an allegation specifically to be made in the Show Cause Notice that the demands of differential duty were to be made by reasons fraud, collusion, suppression of facts etc. with an intent to evade payment of duty, it is not now open for the Revenue to allege and deny credit under Rule 7(1)(b). In any case, ....