2008 (1) TMI 292

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g Order-in-Original No.20/2006 dated 30.3.2006. The ground for denial is that the appellants were not in possession of capital goods when they took the credit. The Bench presided by Hon'ble President and Member (T) by Stay Order No.754/2007 dated 14.9.2007 has considered the issue in assessee's favour and has granted full waiver of deposit and stay of recovery. The finding recorded in Para 2 and 3 of the Stay Order are reproduced herein below. 2. The learned advocate, who appeared on behalf of the appellant, stated that, the appellants received capital goods in the years 2003 and 2003-04. They availed 50% of the duty paid as modvat credit under the prevailing Rules. However, in 2004 and 2005, they cleared the capital goods on payment of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ff Act, in possession and use of the manufacture of final products in such subsequent years." In the present case, when the capital goods were received, the appellants were rightly in possession of the duty paying documents and they availed the eligible credit of 50%. In terms of the Rules, the balance 50% of the Credit can be taken in any financial year subsequent to the financial year in which the capital goods were received. The condition is that, in the financial year, in which they take credit, the capital goods should be in the possession and use of the manufacturer. It is not the dispute that, 2004-05, which is the year, in which the credit was taken, was subsequent to the year in which the goods were received. Moreover, in that fina....