2001 (10) TMI 210

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pt., 1995 which was after 6 months from the date of issue of invoice and disallowance of credit of Rs. 16,157/- and Rs. 1930/- was not correct. (ii) He also found that Sl. No. 13 of the Annexure to the show cause notice was an admitted case by the appellant that credit of Rs. 54,474/- was obtained and availed on their 'own invoice' which was issued in the name of their buyer, the provisions of Rule 173H or 173L or 57F were not followed. The submission of the appellants that the clearances were under Rule 57F to their buyers and goods were then received back was not permitted as covered by any Rules for availment of credit. That could not therefore be considered as procedural lapse, which can be condoned. Hence credit was denied. 2. Af....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the credit was timely taken on 1-10-95 well within 6 months from that date. I have considered the submissions of the SDR relying on the decision in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 214 wherein it was held that availment of credit crucial event determining the admissibility of credit and not the act of taking credit. Rule 57A amendment provides that credit after 6 months of the date of issue of any document will not be eligible. I find that in this case the documents which entitle the appellant to avail the credit was the permission of Asstt. Collector communicated to them on 29-9-95, and not the original lost, duplicate invoice. Therefore there was no delay on the part of the appellant in availing credit....