9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 947 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - input services - commercial or industrial construction service - works contract service - scope of exclusion clause in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - the exclusion clause was inserted in the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 w.e.f. 01.04.2011 - period involved in the present case is from 2007 to 2010. HELD THAT - The said clause was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2011 - Further, the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, DELHI-III VERSUS M/S BELLSONICA AUTO COMPONENTS INDIA P. LTD. 2015 (7) TMI 930 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT has held in para 11 of their ruling that the said amendment was not retrospective. Credit is allowed to appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues involved: Disallowance of Cenvat credit based on exclusion clause in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for 'commercial or industrial construction service' and 'works contract service' during the period from April 2007 to March 2010.
Analysis: 1. The main issue in this case was the disallowance of Cenvat credit amounting to ?2,89,414/- by the original authority, citing the exclusion clause in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for 'commercial or industrial construction service' and 'works contract service' during the period from April 2007 to March 2010. 2. The appellant's counsel argued that the exclusion clause was inserted in the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 w.e.f. 01.04.2011, and hence, not applicable to the period in question. The counsel also relied on a ruling by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in a similar case. 3. The Tribunal noted that the exclusion clause in question was indeed inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2011, and the Punjab & Haryana High Court had held that this amendment was not retrospective. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the disallowed credit of ?2,89,414/- was admissible to the appellant, as the amendment was not applicable to the period from 2007 to 2010. 4. Based on the settled legal position and the non-retrospective nature of the amendment, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the appellants were entitled to consequential relief as per law. The decision was pronounced in the open court, providing relief to the appellant in this matter.
|
