9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 240 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - Supply of goods to the Ministry of Defence for official purposes - N/N. 63/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 - time limitation - Held that - Rule 4 of CCR, 2004 was amended w.e.f. 01.09.2014/01.03.2015 and time limitation was prescribed for claiming the CENVAT credit but this amendment cannot be applied retrospectively for the period from June 2009 to January 2010 which is a period of dispute in this case. During the period of dispute, there was no time limitation prescribed under Rule 4 for claiming the CENVAT credit on inputs used in the manufacture of final product. Therefore, rejection of CENVAT credit on the ground of limitation is not sustainable in law. Case remanded back to the Original Authority to decide the claim of the appellant regarding CENVAT credit on inputs on the basis of documents which may be produced by the appellant in support of their claim - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Availment of CENVAT credit on inputs used in the manufacture of goods supplied to M/s. HAL, Bangalore. 2. Applicability of time limitation for availing CENVAT credit. 3. Rejection of CENVAT credit by the authorities. 4. Legal sustainability of the impugned order. Analysis: Issue 1: Availment of CENVAT credit on inputs The appellant manufactured goods supplied to M/s. HAL from June 2009 to January 2010. The appellant claimed CENVAT credit on inputs used in manufacturing these goods. The Tribunal earlier dismissed the appellant's plea for CENVAT credit due to lack of scrutiny of documents, not on merit. The appellant paid the duty and interest but sought CENVAT credit later. The Tribunal did not consider the request due to procedural reasons. Issue 2: Applicability of time limitation Rule 4 of CENVAT Credit Rules was amended in 2014 and 2015 to introduce a time limit for availing CENVAT credit. However, the amendment cannot be applied retrospectively to the period in question (June 2009 to January 2010) as no time limitation existed then. The rejection of CENVAT credit based on the limitation is deemed legally unsustainable. Issue 3: Rejection of CENVAT credit The impugned order rejected the appellant's claim for CENVAT credit based on the time limitation introduced post the relevant period. The appellant argued that their rights accrued during the period in question and the subsequent amendment should not be retroactively applied. The rejection was found to be legally flawed. Issue 4: Legal sustainability of the impugned order The impugned order was set aside as it failed to consider the absence of a time limitation during the relevant period for claiming CENVAT credit. The case was remanded to the Original Authority for a fresh decision based on the documents provided by the appellant, without considering the time limit prescribed in the amended Rule 4 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the Original Authority for a fresh decision on the appellant's claim for CENVAT credit on inputs used in the manufacture of goods supplied to M/s. HAL, Bangalore. The decision should be made without considering the time limit introduced in the amended Rule 4, following the principles of natural justice.
|
