2018 (5) TMI 397

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elay in taking the credit. Therefore, the appellants are before us. 2. Shri M.H. Patil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the dealy in taking credit is not intentional and not due to mala fide. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods. Therefore, to ascertain how much credit should be availed, they have kept the credit pending. In this regard, the appellant have been making the constant corresponding with the department. He has taken us to the various correspondences regarding the quantum of the credit to be taken attributed to the dutiable goods. However, due to lack of clarity, the credit could not be taken in time, hence, there was delay. He further submits that all ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sidered. He further submits that Rule 11 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is not applicable as the same will apply only when credit taken immediately at the time of receipt. In support of the submissions, he placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Wipro Ltd. vs. UOI- 1997 (94) ELT 470 (SC) (b) CCE vs. Mysore Lac & Plant Works Ltd. - 1991 (52) ELT 370 (Guj) (c) Himu Accessories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai - 2007 (219) ELT 83 (Mad) (d) CCE, Bhavnagar Vs. Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd.- 2007 (212) ELT 7 (SC). 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that the limited issued to be decided by us is whether the appellant can be debarred from availing CENVAT Credit in facts of ....