2021 (9) TMI 1261 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - time limitation - entitlement for Credit beyond six months from the date of issue of invoice in terms of N/N. 21/2014-CE (N.T.) dated 11.07.2014 which was substituted by amendment N/N. 06/2015-C.E. (N.T.) dated 01st March, 2015 - HELD THAT - This issue has been considered in various judgments and it was interpreted that all the invoices issued prior to the issuance of the notification dated 11.07.2014, the notification shall not apply consequently, there is no time limit for taking credit in respect of those invoices. In the present case, most of the invoices were issued after the date of notification, since the time limit has been extended from six months to one year by substitution in the Notification No.21/2014-CE (N.T.) dated 11.07.2014, the time limit shall be taken as one year and as per the submission of learned counsel, the invoices issued after the date of notification dated 11.07.2014 credit was taken within one year. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Whether the appellant is entitled to Cenvat Credit beyond six months from the date of issue of invoice in terms of Notification No.21/2014-CE (N.T.) dated 11.07.2014.

Analysis:
The issue in this case revolves around the entitlement of the appellant to Cenvat Credit beyond the stipulated six-month period from the date of invoice issuance as per Notification No.21/2014-CE (N.T.). The appellant argues that the time limit was subsequently extended to one year through an amendment. The contention is that for invoices issued before the notification, the time limit should not apply. The appellant relies on the judgment of VIJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAW AND ALOK MASTERBATCHES LTD VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T.-DAMAN- 2021 (4) TMI 804- CESTAT AHMEDABAD to support their claim.

Analysis:
The department contends that the time limit for Cenvat Credit as per Notification No.21/2014-CE (N.T.) is six months from invoice issuance. However, the tribunal has interpreted that there is no time limit for invoices issued before the notification date. As most invoices in this case were issued after the notification, the extended time limit of one year applies. The tribunal refers to the case of VIJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAW AND ALOK MASTERBATCHES LTD to support this interpretation.

Analysis:
The main issue is whether the Cenvat Credit claimed after 01.09.2014 for invoices issued before that date is time-barred as per amendment notification no 21/2014-CE(N.T.). The tribunal refers to the case of BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD. V/S. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CENTRAL TAX GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, where it was held that the six-month limitation does not apply to invoices issued before the notification came into effect. The tribunal also cites various decisions supporting this interpretation.

Analysis:
The tribunal concludes that the issue is settled in favor of the assessee based on the Delhi High Court judgment of GLOBAL CERAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. The appellant is deemed entitled to Cenvat Credit since all invoices for which credit was claimed were issued before 01.09.2014. The impugned order is set aside, and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with the law.

Analysis:
The tribunal sets aside the impugned order and allows the appeal, emphasizing that the issue is no longer res-integra based on previous decisions and judgments.