2020 (2) TMI 1193 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - time limitation - credit denied to the appellant on the findings that the same has been availed after a period of six months from the date of issuance of the said invoices - N/N. 21/2014-CE(NT) dated 11.7.2014 - HELD THAT - The issue is no more res integra Tribunal in the cases of BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX GOODS SERVICE TAX 2019 (7) TMI 1084 - CESTAT NEW DELHI M/S INDIAN POTASH LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST MEERUT 2018 (10) TMI 1367 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD and M/S KELTECH ENERGIES LTD VERSUS C.E, S. T-COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CENTRAL TAX MANGALORE 2019 (11) TMI 8 - CESTAT BANGALORE has held that the notification in question introducing the bar of limitation is applicable only prospectively and shall have no effect on the invoices issued prior to the said notification. The impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Denial of Cenvat credit due to availing after six months from invoice issuance; Interpretation of Notification No. 21/2014-CE(NT); Reversal of original adjudicating authority's decision by Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The appellant's Cenvat credit was denied for availing it after six months from the date of invoice issuance, as per Notification No. 21/2014-CE(NT) dated 11.7.2014. The original adjudicating authority dropped the demand considering that all invoices were issued before the notification date, hence the debar introduced by the notification would not apply. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision and allowed the Revenue's appeal, leading to the current appeal.

2. The Tribunal referred to previous cases like Bharat Aluminium Company Limited, M/s Indian Potash Ltd., and M/s Keltech Energies Ltd., where it was held that the limitation introduced by the notification applies prospectively and does not affect invoices issued before its enactment. Based on this legal precedent, the Tribunal found the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

This judgment clarifies the application of time limits for availing Cenvat credit, emphasizing that notifications introducing limitations operate prospectively and do not impact transactions completed before their enactment. It highlights the importance of legal precedent in interpreting tax laws and ensuring consistent application across cases.