2018 (6) TMI 786 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – CENVAT credit – inputs – Revenue entertained a view that inasmuch as goods were not received in the factory on or after first day of March 2001, the appellant would not be entitled to avail the credit of the same, in terms of the new provisions of Rule 57AB introduced vide N/N. 6/2001-CE(NT) – Held that:- When the inputs were received in the assessee’s factory in Jan. and Feb. 2001, they were admittedly entitled to avail the credit of duty paid thereon. Had they taken the credit in Jan. and Feb, itself, there would have been no objection by the Revenue. In fact, the said inputs were duly entered by them in their input records and it was only taking of credit which was deferred. As such, it can be seen that it is a case where the appellant had earned the credit and has become entitled to the same and only making entries in RG-23A Part-II were delayed/left. As such, it is a case of correction of records and has no bearing on the appellant’s en
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the manufacture of motor vehicles and were availing the benefit of Cenvat credit of duty paid on various inputs. 2. Its so happened that during the period Jan. 2001 and Feb. 2001, the appellant received certain duty paid inputs which were duly entered in their records. As per the appellant, the credit could not be availed during the said period, immediately on receipt of the inputs but the same was availed in the month of March 2001. With effect from 1.3.2001, the provisions of Rule 57AB, which enabled the appellant to avail the credit were amended and a new sub-clause 5 was entered vide which the National Calamity Contingent Duty, which was introduced for the first time with effect from 1.3.2001, also became Cenvatable. In this scenario, the said rule provided that all the types of duties mentioned in Rule 57AB including National Calamity Contingent Duty paid on the inputs received in the factory on or after the first day of March 2001, would be available as credit. 3. Though, the cr
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d in Jan. and Feb. 2001, Revenue was of the view that the appellant would not be entitled to the credit. I note that when the inputs were received in the assessee s factory in Jan. and Feb. 2001, they were admittedly entitled to avail the credit of duty paid thereon. Had they taken the credit in Jan. and Feb, itself, there would have been no objection by the Revenue. In fact, the said inputs were duly entered by them in their input records and it was only taking of credit which was deferred. As such, it can be seen that it is a case where the appellant had earned the credit and has become entitled to the same and only making entries in RG-23A Part-II were delayed/left. As such, it is a case of correction of records and has no bearing on the appellant s entitlement to take credit. 5. Further, I also find that the amended provisions talks about taking of credit in respect of inputs received on or after 1.3.2001 inasmuch as National Calamity Contingent Duty was imposed for the first time
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =