TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1051
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 by order-inoriginal no.39/2012/C dated 28th May 2012 of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nagpur. Allegedly, the appellant, a manufacturer of parts for 'material handling systems', had, in contravention of rule 4(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by storing otherwise eligible 'inputs' at unregistered premises and without taking statutory permission mandated under rule 8 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the period from 1st May 2010 to 31st January 2011, been rendered ineligible for the credit availed. 2. Learned Counsel for appellant drew our attention to letter of the appellant dated 7th May 2010 seeking approval for incorporation of the adjoining plot in their central excise registration after le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....disputed period. 5. On the admitted facts, it is seen the disputed credit is attributable to 'inputs' stored at premises that, though not included in the registration, was pending for approval of such inclusion. Considering that the approval was granted, and though belatedly, without any objections thereto, it is cause for wonderment that such delay was tolerated by the supervisory authority. It is also no less surprising that the officials engaged in 'EA 2000 Audit' did not consider it necessary to ascertain the cause of such 'unalloyed' breach of conditions; perhaps the nomenclature, permanently linked to its conception, is responsible for depriving it of the robustness that audit should be imbued with if it is to have continued relevanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actual receipt of duty paid inputs and their utilization in manufacture of specified final products, we find no justification for denying the credit or imposition of penalty. The deviations from normal practice necessitated by business exigencies are no ground for denial of legally available facility. The storage of inputs outside the factory premises, prior to being brought to the factory, is specifically recognized by the aforesaid Circulars of the Board and the Commissioner.' with appellant herein on better footing by having applied for permission, leads to the conclusion that business exigency cannot be made to wait on bureaucratic inertia. In re Crop Health Products Ltd, it was held that '4. We find that appellant vide Letter dated ....