2020 (3) TMI 196 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - time limitation for claiming credit - credit denied on the allegations that the same stands availed after a period of six months from the date of issuance of the invoices and in terms of Notification No. 21/2014-CE dated 11 July, 2014, the credit is available only within a period of six months from the date of the invoices - HELD THAT - The issue stands decided in BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, GOODS SERVICE TAX 2019 (7) TMI 1084 - CESTAT NEW DELHI laying down that period of six months limitation provided with effect from 1.9.2014 would not apply to the Cenvatable invoices issued prior to the said date - credit remains allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Dispute over Cenvat credit availed in November 2014.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 21/2014-CE regarding the time limit for availing credit.
3. Applicability of Tribunal decisions on the issue.

Analysis:

1. Dispute over Cenvat credit availed in November 2014:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing liquid gases falling under Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, availed Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs. The dispute in the present appeal pertains to the Cenvat credit of &8377; 26,67,071/- availed in November 2014.

2. Interpretation of Notification No. 21/2014-CE:
The lower authorities denied the credit, citing that it was availed after six months from the date of issuance of the invoices. Notification No. 21/2014-CE, effective from 1.9.2014, stipulated a six-month limit for availing credit from the date of the invoices. However, the appellant argued that the invoices were raised before the effective date of the notification, and thus, the time limit should not apply to them.

3. Applicability of Tribunal decisions:
The Member (Judicial) referred to specific Tribunal decisions, including Indian Potash Ltd. case, Bharat Aluminium Company Limited case, and Voss Exotech Automotive Pvt. Ltd. case. These decisions established that the six-month limitation introduced from 1.9.2014 did not apply to Cenvatable invoices issued before that date. Relying on these precedents, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Notification No. 21/2014-CE and provides guidance on the applicability of time limits for availing Cenvat credit, particularly concerning invoices issued before the introduction of such limits. The reliance on Tribunal decisions strengthens the appellant's position and highlights the importance of precedent in resolving disputes related to indirect taxation.