9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 8 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - date of issuance of invoice - it was alleged that appellant had availed CENVAT credit of ₹ 4,37,222/- on the strength of invoices after lapse of six months/one year from the date of issue - proviso to Rule 4 of the CCR, 2004 as amended by N/N. 21/2014 CE (NT) dated 11.07.2014 and No.6/2015 CE (NT) dated 01.03.2015 - HELD THAT - The appellant did not avail the CENVAT credit on Service Tax paid on commission to the Commission Agent because there was a dispute whether the said service falls in the definition of input service and a SCN was issued to the appellant and therefore, the appellant did not avail the CENVAT credit and kept the invoices pending and when the issue was finally settled by the Tribunal and thereafter the Additional Commissioner decided the SCN in favour of the appellant, then the appellant took the CENVAT credit - Further, the appellant had reasonable excuse for not taking the credit as there was a dispute regarding the input service. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - The entire demand is also time barred because the SCN was issued on 28.06.2017 and the period of dispute is April 2013 to May 2014 and the appellant has been filing the Returns regularly therefore there is no reason to invoke the extended period of limitation in the present case. On merit as well as on limitation, the impugned order is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Disallowance of CENVAT credit due to availing credit beyond the prescribed time limit. - Dispute over the eligibility of CENVAT credit on Service Tax paid to Commission Agents. - Interpretation of procedural requirements and time limitations under Rule 4 of the CCR, 2004. - Application of case laws and precedents to justify availing CENVAT credit beyond the time limit. - Assessment of time-barred demand and invocation of extended period of limitation. Analysis: 1. Disallowed CENVAT Credit: The case involved the disallowance of CENVAT credit amounting to ?4,37,222/- due to the appellant availing credit beyond the stipulated time limit as per Rule 4 of the CCR, 2004. The appellant argued that the credit was legitimate and should not be denied solely on procedural grounds. 2. Dispute over Eligibility: A key contention was the eligibility of CENVAT credit on Service Tax paid to Commission Agents for sales promotion services. The appellant refrained from availing credit initially due to a dispute raised by the Department regarding the eligibility of such credit. The dispute was eventually resolved in favor of the appellant, leading to the subsequent availing of the credit. 3. Interpretation of Procedural Requirements: The Tribunal analyzed the procedural requirements and time limitations under Rule 4 of the CCR, 2004, emphasizing that the amendments introducing time limits were prospective in nature. The appellant's actions were deemed justifiable as they availed credit for invoices predating the notifications imposing time limits. 4. Application of Case Laws: The appellant relied on legal precedents to support their argument that the limitation of time for availing CENVAT credit is a procedural requirement and can be condoned in certain circumstances to prevent the denial of substantial benefits under the law. The Tribunal found merit in these arguments and applied the principles established in the cited cases. 5. Assessment of Time-Barred Demand: The Tribunal concluded that the entire demand was time-barred, considering that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued in 2017 for a period dating back to 2013-2014. The regular filing of Returns by the appellant further supported the view that there was no basis to invoke the extended period of limitation in this case. 6. Judgment: Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order disallowing the CENVAT credit. The decision was based on the findings that the appellant had a reasonable excuse for the delayed credit availing, the procedural lapses were condonable, and the demand was time-barred, thereby allowing the appeal. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the core issues, legal arguments presented, relevant case laws applied, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision in favor of the appellant.
|
