2010 (8) TMI 258 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit inputs - transitional provision under Rule 57H as amended on 16-3-95 credit being allowed on the inputs which were lying in stock or were received in the factory on or after 16-3-95 subjected to condition that provided that credit under this sub-rule allowed in respect of inputs received or declaration made under Rule 57G on or after 15th day of April, 2005 Held that - no dispute that appellants have filed necessary declaration under Rule 57G or before15-4-95 - the appellants waiting for approval by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner cannot be faulted - conditions fulfilled, denial of in respect of inputs lying in stock on or before10-4-95cannot be upheld

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of transitional provisions under Rule 57H for availing Cenvat Credit.
2. Time limit for taking credit under Rule 57G.
3. Interpretation of the relevant legal provisions and case laws.

Analysis:

1. Applicability of transitional provisions under Rule 57H for availing Cenvat Credit:
The appellants filed a declaration under Rule 57G for availing Cenvat Credit. The dispute arose when the credit taken by the appellants was denied on the grounds of exceeding the time limit for taking credit. The Tribunal examined the transitional provision under Rule 57H, which allows credit on inputs in stock or received in the factory on or after a specified date, subject to filing a declaration under Rule 57G before a certain date. The Tribunal found that the appellants had filed the necessary declaration within the prescribed time limit, making them eligible for the credit. Therefore, the denial of credit for inputs lying in stock before a specific date was set aside.

2. Time limit for taking credit under Rule 57G:
The Tribunal considered the time limit prescribed under Rule 57G, which required manufacturers to take credit within a six-month period. The Tribunal referred to a case law where it was held that the time limit introduced in Rule 57G could not be applied retrospectively. As a result, the Tribunal ruled that for the period before a certain date, the appellants were eligible for credit without reference to the six-month limit. However, for the period after that date, the appellants had to adhere to the six-month time limit for taking credit. The denial of credit for the subsequent period was upheld based on the appellants taking credit after the expiry of six months.

3. Interpretation of the relevant legal provisions and case laws:
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of interpreting transitional provisions in the proper perspective. It clarified that the conditions for availing credit under the transitional provisions must be fulfilled within the specified timelines. The Tribunal also highlighted the distinction between the periods before and after the introduction of certain legal provisions, emphasizing the need to comply with the applicable time limits for taking credit. Based on these interpretations and considerations of relevant case laws, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by allowing credit for certain periods while upholding the denial of credit for other periods.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of applicability of transitional provisions, time limits for taking credit, and interpretation of legal provisions and case laws, providing a detailed analysis and ruling on each aspect raised in the appeal.