9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1064 - AT - Service Tax100% EOU - Refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit - time limitation - appellant has filed a refund claim on 03/07/2015 for the period October 2014 to December 2014 - Held that - The time limit for taking CENVAT credit was introduced first time from 01/09/2014 and a period of 6 months was prescribed but vide N/N. 6/2015-CE dt. 01/03/2015, this time period of 6 months was increased to one year and this amendment has substituted the words one year in place of six months. Relying on the decision in the case of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (9) TMI 633 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , it is held that this amendment which was introduced by way of substitution is applicable retrospectively and the appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit on all the invoices which have been produced on record except one invoice for ₹ 27,810/- which is beyond one year from the amendment dt. 01/03/2015. The appellant is entitled to the CENVAT credit of ₹ 3,09 964/- which is within one year from the amendment vide N/N. 6/2015 dt. 01/03/2015 - appeal allowed in part.
Issues:
1. Eligibility of CENVAT credit for service tax paid on input services. 2. Time limit to avail CENVAT credit - 6 months or one year. 3. Applicability of amendments to rules retrospectively. 4. Interpretation of Section 38A of the Act. 5. Precedent cases regarding retrospective application of amendments. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal addressed the eligibility of CENVAT credit for service tax paid on input services by a 100% EOU engaged in exporting Information Technology Enabled Software Services. The appellant filed a refund claim, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The key issue was the credit availed on invoices issued before the stipulated time limit. 2. The primary issue revolved around the time limit to avail CENVAT credit, whether it was 6 months or one year. The appellant argued that the time limit of 6 months was not applicable to invoices issued before a certain date and relied on Section 38A to support their claim. The respondent contended that the amendment specifying the one-year time limit was prospective and not retrospective. 3. The interpretation of Section 38A of the Act played a crucial role in determining the retrospective application of the time limit amendment. The appellant argued that the rights accrued prior to the amendment should not be affected, while the respondent maintained that the one-year time limit introduced through an amendment was not retrospective. 4. The judgment considered precedent cases such as CCE&ST, Bangalore Vs. Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. and GOI Vs. Indian Tobacco Association to support the retrospective application of the amendment. The appellant's reliance on these cases highlighted the importance of past judicial decisions in determining the outcome of the current appeal. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing CENVAT credit on most invoices except one that exceeded the one-year time limit specified in the amendment. The decision was based on the retrospective application of the amendment, as supported by the Karnataka High Court's decision in the Fosroc Chemicals case. The judgment emphasized the significance of legal precedents in guiding the interpretation and application of tax laws and amendments.
|
