2018 (10) TMI 1366 - AT - Central Excise

Irregular availment of CENVAT Credit - Rule 4(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - The denial is basically on the ground that Notification No. 21/2014-CE dated 11.07.2014 amended Rule 4 by inserting a proviso after the second proviso in sub rule (7), which prescribed time limit for availing credit - Held that - It is an admitted position of law that prior to 01.09.2014 there was no time limit prescribed to avail cenvat credit - It can be safely assumed that the amendment would apply to invoices raised on or after the said date of amendment. In the light of the later amendment vide Notification No. 06/2015, the period of six months has been extended to one year and if the Notification 21/2014 (supra) were to operate retrospectively, then the same effect would have been provided to the Notification No. 06/2015 as well. The Revenue authorities have erred in denying the benefit of cenvat credit on inputs and input services - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to denial of cenvat credit based on alleged irregular credit availed, interpretation of Rule 4(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, applicability of Notification No. 21/2014-CE, subsequent amendment by Notification No. 06/2015, time limit for availing cenvat credit, similarity with Mumbai Tribunal's decision.

Analysis:
The appeal challenges the Commissioner's order denying cenvat credit due to alleged irregularities in availing credit, particularly related to invoices issued before the stipulated period. The Revenue alleged a violation of Rule 4(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, proposing to disallow credit amounting to Rupees 13,79,402. The denial was based on the interpretation of Notification No. 21/2014-CE, which introduced a time limit for availing credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this interpretation, emphasizing the applicability of the notification to invoices issued post-amendment. Notably, no invoices were deemed invalid, and subsequent amendments extended the time limit to one year under Notification No. 06/2015.

The Tribunal analyzed a similar case from the Mumbai Bench involving a delay in availing credit beyond the prescribed period under Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. In that case, credit was availed within one year from the date of issue of documents, aligning with the time limit set by Notification No. 6/15-CE (NT) dated 1.3.2015. Drawing parallels with this precedent and considering the facts of the present case, the Tribunal concluded that the Revenue erred in denying cenvat credit on inputs and input services. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the appellant, overturning the denial of cenvat credit based on the interpretation of Rule 4(1) and Notification No. 21/2014-CE. The subsequent amendment under Notification No. 06/2015, coupled with the Mumbai Tribunal's decision, supported the appellant's position, leading to the allowance of the appeal and granting of consequential benefits.