2017 (6) TMI 266

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te - For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, Deputy Commissioner(AR) - For the Respondent ORDER The appeal is preferred against the Order-in-Appeal No.302/2003-CE dt. 17/10/2003.  In terms of which, the CENVAT credit taken in respect of two cancelled invoices, both dated 8/12/2000 has been denied to the extent of Rs. 11,85,441/-.  The facts are that these two invoices were issued for g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant.  The only reason cited for denying the recredit is that the same should have been availed immediately after intimating the proper officer.  Shri K. Parameswaran, learned advocate arguing the case for the appellant, also placed his reliance on several case laws.  In particular, he relied upon the case law of Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CCE(A), Visakhapatnam-IV [2009(239) E....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the reason that the credit has been taken after a lapse of as much as 16 months.  We have gone through the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. (supra), which is on identical facts.  The Tribunal decided the case with the following findings:- 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The entitlement of credit on the fuel is not under d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....limitation by implication where there is really none. The Tribunal in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals v. CCE, Chennai reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 256 (Tri.) held that when there is no time limit prescribed, time limit should not be read by implication. The Tribunal in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 459 (Tri.-....