TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 657
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i G. Prahlad, Advocate for the Respondent. [Order per: M.V. Ravindran] This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in- Original No. 22/2010 (RS) dated 10.05.2010. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of records, we find that the issue is whether respondent/assessee was entitled to avail CENVAT credit of Central Excise duty paid on the capital goods which were rece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d prior to 10.09.2004 and the CENVAT Credit Rules indicate that the credit shall be taken within reasonable period. 5. Learned Counsel submits that the Adjudicating Authority has correctly followed the law as laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd., [2009 (239) ELT 99]. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that there is no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....availed as mentioned in Rule 9 included an invoice issued by a manufacturer of a registered dealer. There is no restriction in this rule that the invoice should have been dated on or after 10.09.2004. Thus the documents on which credit was availed by the assessee are valid documents under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Further in terms of Rule 11 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, there was a t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the department was kept informed about the date of receipt of capital goods into their factory. Thus the allegation of suppression of facts for invoking extended period would not sustain. In fine, the assessee was legally entitled to take credit on the capital goods in question. Thus the demand fails both on merits and on the grounds of limitation. Since the main allegation does not survive ....