9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 701 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - time limit availing credit - sub-rule (7) of Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that when the credit was taken i.e. on 28.02.2015, proviso to sub rule (7) of Rule 4 of CCR provided that such credit could not have been availed. - proviso restricting the credit within 6 months will apply from the date 1.9.2014 for the availment of cenvat credit after that date. The rule was clear and there was no ambiguity in the Rule. The rule changed with effect from 01/03/2015 and the words six months were changed to one year . - The amendment so made to the said proviso would have prospective effect. Consequently, the credit would not be admissible to the appellant since the duty was paid during the period 02.04.2014-31.08.2014 and credit was availed on 28.02.2015. Time limitation - HELD THAT - There is absolutely no ambiguity in the law and thus, the availment of credit after six months clearly amounts to misdeclaration, suppression and fraud - the extended period has been rightly invoked. Appeal dismissed - Decided against appellant.
Issues:
Confirmation of demand of Cenvat Credit based on the timeline of credit availment, applicability of Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules, utilization of credit, reliance on previous judgments, interpretation of the law, invocation of extended period for demand confirmation. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the confirmation of demand of Cenvat Credit by M/s Bharat Resins. The issue revolved around the timeline of credit availment concerning the amendment in sub-rule (7) of Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules. Initially, the proviso restricted credit availment to within six months of the date of issue of relevant documents. However, an amendment replaced 'six months' with 'one year' effective from 01/03/2015. The appellant argued that although credit was taken after six months but within one year of duty payment, it should not be denied. The appellant also contended that once credit is utilized, demand under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules cannot be sustained. Reference was made to the decision of Sejasmi Industries India Pvt. Ltd. where credit was allowed under similar circumstances. Additionally, the appellant raised the issue of limitation, claiming that the extended period invoked was not applicable. On the other hand, the respondent relied on the impugned order and cited the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in JCB India Ltd. vs. Union of India, emphasizing the strict implementation of Cenvat Credit Rules as a concession, not a right. The respondent also cited the case of SICGIL Industrial Gases Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. & Cus. Anand to support their argument. The judgment emphasized that Cenvat credit is a concession subject to specific conditions and requirements. The rule change from 'six months' to 'one year' was clear, and the credit availment timeline was crucial. The judgment highlighted the importance of fulfilling all provisos for credit availment. The ruling in SICGIL Industries Ltd. was referenced to support the prospective effect of the amendment. It was concluded that the credit was inadmissible due to the timeline mismatch between duty payment and credit availment. Regarding the utilization of credit and limitation, the judgment reiterated the clear provision of the law and upheld the invocation of the extended period due to misdeclaration, suppression, and fraud implications. The reliance on previous cases like Sejasmi Industries India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Hi-Tech Blow Moulders Pvt. Ltd. was distinguished based on differing factual backgrounds, affirming the denial of credit in the present case. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed based on the findings, and the judgment was pronounced on 18.07.2019.
|
