9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 804 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - time limitation - credit availed after a period of 6 months from the date of issue of cenvatable invoices - cenvat credit was availed after 01.09.2014, in respect of invoices issue prior to 01.09.2014 - applicability of proviso inserted in Rule 4(1) 4(7) vide notification No. 21/2014-CE(N.T.) dated 11.07.2014 - HELD THAT - Though there are various decision on the issue however, the Division Bench in the case of BHARAT RESINS LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. SURAT-I 2019 (9) TMI 701 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD held that the limitation of 6 months provided as per notification no 21/2014-CE(N.T.) is not applicable in cases where the invoices were issued before the notification came into effect i.e. 01.09.2014. The appellant is entitled for the Cenvat Credit since all the invoices on which cenvat credit was claimed were issued prior to 01.09.2014 - personal penalty imposed on Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastaw will also not sustain the same is also set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of cenvat credit by revenue for availing credit after 6 months from the date of issue of cenvatable invoices. 2. Applicability of amendment notification 21/2014-CE(N.T.) on invoices issued before 01.09.2014. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: The main issue in this case is whether the revenue was correct in denying the cenvat credit based on availing the credit after 6 months from the date of issue of cenvatable invoices. The appellant argued that even though the credit was taken after the amendment notification 21/2014-CE (N.T.), all the invoices were issued before 01.09.2014, making the amended provision inapplicable. The appellant cited various judgments in support of this argument, including M/S VOSS EXOTECH AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE and GLOBAL CERAMICS PVT. LTD. v/S. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., among others. Issue 2: The second issue revolves around the applicability of amendment notification 21/2014-CE(N.T.) on invoices issued before 01.09.2014. The Tribunal considered whether the limitation of 6 months provided in the notification applied to invoices issued prior to the notification coming into effect. The Tribunal referred to the Division Bench decision in the case of BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD. V/S. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, which held that the 6-month limitation was not applicable to invoices issued before 01.09.2014. The Tribunal also cited judgments from various other cases to support this interpretation, such as Indian Potash Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central GST and Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, among others. Conclusion: Based on the analysis of the issues involved and the relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the cenvat credit since all the invoices on which the credit was claimed were issued prior to 01.09.2014. The impugned order denying the credit was set aside, and the personal penalty imposed was also lifted. The Tribunal directed the Original Adjudicating Authority to verify the fact that the invoices were indeed issued before 01.09.2014, providing the appellant with an opportunity to assist in the verification process.
|
