Case Law Details
Jindal Texofab Ltd Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
As per the above report it can be seen that after proper verification some discrepancy was found for Rs 1, 50,250/- which was reversed by the appellant. As per the procedure the proper stock verification was conducted by the Superintendent thereafter the Adjudicating Authority seeking further verification of all the records is unwarranted. We are of the view that the aforesaid verification report is conclusive one therefore; no further material is required for establishing the stock lying in the factory of the appellant as on 31.03.2004. Therefore, we are of the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) has gone beyond the direction given by the Tribunal in the earlier order dated 19.11.2010.
In our view the appellant have complied with the procedure prescribed for availing transitional credit in respect of the stock lying as on 31.03.2004. Therefore, there is no reason to deny the Cenvat Credit.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
The issue involved in the present case is denial of cenvat credit of Rs 85,06,974/- allegedly for not following the procedure prescribed under Rule 9A of Cenvat Credit Rules and not filing proper declaration for availing the said credit and the transitional credit as prescribed under Notification No. 25/03-CE (NT) dated 25.03.2003 and 4./03-CE(NT) dated 30.04.2003.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
