2019 (1) TMI 1158 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - time limitation - Rule 4(1) of CCR, 2004 - it was alleged that CENVAT credit has been availed beyond the statutory period of one year from the date of document which was in contravention of the amended Rule 4(1) of CCR, 2004. Held that - In the present case, the credit pertains to two Bills of Entry dated 28.05.2013 and 10.06.2013 but the credit was availed in December 2015 - Further, the limitation of one year for availing the CENVAT credit as per Rule 4 of CCR is not applicable in the present case because the invoices pertains to the period prior to the amendment and the amendment has not been made applicable retrospectively. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of M/s. Voss Exotech Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C.Ex. Pune-I, 2018 (3) TMI 1048 - CESTAT MUMBAI wherein it has been held that restrictions on manufacturer to avail credit beyond the period of six months/one year did not apply to invoices issued prior to the dates of notification. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Availment of irregular CENVAT credit beyond statutory period
- Denial of CENVAT credit for Basic Custom Duty, Custom Education Cess, and Customs Secondary & Higher Education Cess
- Appeal against the rejection of the appellant's appeal by the Commissioner (A)

Analysis:
1. Availment of irregular CENVAT credit beyond statutory period:
The case involved the appellant, a manufacturer of 'Fabricated Structures,' who availed irregular CENVAT credit amounting to ?42,82,474 in December 2015 for goods imported through Bills of Entry dated 28.05.2013 and 10.06.2013. The Department alleged that the credit was availed beyond the one-year statutory period from the date of the document, contravening Rule 4(1) of CCR, 2004. The Joint Commissioner confirmed the demand of ?24,41,801 availed after one year and ?15,87,606 irregular credit for Basic Custom Duty, interest, and penalties. The appellant challenged the denial of credit, arguing that the time limit for availing credit was not applicable as the goods were received before the amendment to Rule 4 of CCR.

2. Denial of CENVAT credit for Basic Custom Duty, Custom Education Cess, and Customs Secondary & Higher Education Cess:
The Department contended that a portion of the availed credit pertained to Basic Custom Duty, Custom Education Cess, and Customs Secondary & Higher Education Cess, which could not be claimed as per Rule 3 of CCR. The appellant's appeal against the denial of ?15,87,606 credit was rejected by the Commissioner (A), leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.

3. Appeal against the rejection of the appellant's appeal by the Commissioner (A):
The appellant challenged the rejection of their appeal by the Commissioner (A) on the grounds that the impugned order was unsustainable in law. The appellant argued that the credit availed after the statutory period was valid as there was no time restriction during the relevant period. Citing a decision by the Mumbai Tribunal, the appellant contended that the restriction on availing credit beyond the specified period did not apply to invoices issued before the amendment. The Tribunal, after considering submissions from both parties, relied on the decision in the case of M/s. Voss Exotech Automotive Pvt. Ltd. to set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the denial of CENVAT credit was not sustainable in law as the credit availed after the statutory period was valid in this case. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant notifications and precedents, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.