9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1084 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - time limit - invoices beyond six months - Rule 4 (7) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The appellant has referred to and relied upon various precedent decisions of the Tribunal laying down that the time restriction of six months would not apply to the invoices issued prior to 01/09/2014. The Appellate Authority, very religiously, mentioned all these decisions in the order but sad enough, did not refer to the same in the operative portion of his order - We really fail to appreciate the above conclusion drawn by Commissioner (Appeals) without even whispering about the applicability of various decisions referred to and relied upon by the appellant which clearly covers the issue in their favour. This attitude of Commissioner (Appeals) reflects on his pre-determined mind to reject the appeals in a mechanical manner, thus putting the litigant into difficulty, apart from the increasing the burden and pendency of litigation at the higher level. Reliance placed in the case of M/S INDIAN POTASH LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST, MEERUT 2018 (10) TMI 1367 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD wherein it was clearly held that the six month limitation provided with effect from 01/09/2014 would not apply to the cenvatable invoices issued prior to said date. However, the fact that the invoices in question were prior to 01/09/2014 is required to be verified. The Original Adjudicating Authority is directed to do so, with the association of appellant to whom an opportunity would be given - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues: Availment of Cenvat Credit beyond the time limit prescribed by Rule 4(7) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for invoices issued before 1st September 2014.
Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi involved the issue of availing Cenvat Credit beyond the time limit set by Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for invoices issued before 1st September 2014. The appellants were utilizing the benefit of Cenvat Credit on duty paid on inputs and service tax paid on Input Services. An audit objection revealed that the appellants had availed credit beyond the stipulated six-month period from the date of issuance of certain invoices. Consequently, proceedings were initiated against them to disallow the credit. The Original Adjudicating Authority rejected the appellant's plea that the time restriction did not apply to invoices issued before 1st September 2014. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the present appeals. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider various precedent decisions of the Tribunal favoring the appellant's stance that the time limit of six months did not apply to invoices issued before 1st September 2014. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner's rejection of the appeal without addressing the relevant precedents, indicating a pre-determined mindset. The Tribunal highlighted that the issue had already been settled in favor of the assessee by multiple decisions, including those of different Tribunals and even the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Appellate Tribunal referred to specific cases such as Indian Potash Ltd., Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., and others, where it was held that the six-month limitation introduced from 1st September 2014 did not apply to invoices issued before that date. Considering the settled law on the matter, the Tribunal directed the Original Adjudicating Authority to verify that the invoices in question were indeed issued before 1st September 2014. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and disposed of both appeals in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the need for a thorough verification process in line with the established legal principles.
|
