9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 530 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - time limitation - denial of credit on the ground that appellant has not availed the Cenvat credit immediately on receipt of inputs therefore, it becomes time bar - period of 2009-2010 and 2010-11 in July 2013 - HELD THAT - This issue has been considered by the Honb le Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of INDUSTRIAL CABLES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH 2009 (1) TMI 281 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH wherein the same issue of limitation for availing the Cenvat credit was considered and it was held that The interpretation of Rule 57G adopted by the Tribunal is incorrect and unjust and, therefore, the period of limitation of six months imported by the Tribunal in Rule 57G is unsustainable as the Tribunal or the Courts are not competent to import any specific period of limitation by implication. It is thus settled legal position of law the cenvat credit cannot be denied on the ground of limitation in absence of any statutory time limit prescribed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant's claim for Cenvat credit is time-barred due to the delay in availing the credit. 2. The applicability of the time limit for availing Cenvat credit prior to the notification dated 11.07.2014. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the appellant's claim for Cenvat credit is time-barred due to the delay in availing the credit: The appellant availed Cenvat credit for the period 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 in July 2013. The department argued that the credit was not availed immediately upon receipt of inputs and thus should be denied as time-barred. The appellant contended that no time limit was prescribed for taking credit during the relevant period, and the time limit was only introduced by Notification No. 21/2014-CE dated 11.07.2014. Therefore, the appellant argued that the credit could not be denied on the ground of time bar since the relevant period was before the notification. The appellant supported their argument by citing various judgments, including: - Raghuvar (India) Ltd 2000 (118) ELT 311 (SC) - Balkrishna Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd 2016 (340) ELT 55 (Guj.) - SGS India Private Limited 2011 (270) ELT 115 (Tri. Guj) - Steel Authority of India Limited 2013 (287) ELT 321 (Tri. Del) - Borosil Glass Works Limited 2015 (319) ELT 119 (Tri. Mum) - Transformers and Rectifiers 2010 (262) ELT 983 (Tri. Ahd) - Industrial Cables 2009 (236) ELT 658 (P&H) - Ram Sawrup Electricals Ltd 2007 (217) ELT 12 (All.) - Pratibha Syntex Ltd 2013 (287) ELT 290 - Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals 1989 (42) ELT 515 (SC) - Brakes India Ltd 1997 (96) ELT 434 - Mold-tek Technologies Ltd 2006 (205) ELT 415 On the other hand, the department reiterated the findings of the impugned order, arguing that even without a prescribed time limit, the appellant should have taken the credit within a reasonable period. They cited judgments including: - Mold-tek Technologies Ltd 2006 (205) ELT 415 - Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals 1989 (42) ELT 515 (SC) - Brakes India Ltd 1997 (96) ELT 434 - Mysore Lac & Paint Works Ltd 1991 (52) ELT 5920 (Tri.) 2. The applicability of the time limit for availing Cenvat credit prior to the notification dated 11.07.2014: The tribunal examined whether the time limit introduced by Notification No. 21/2014-CE (NT) dated 11.07.2014, which mandated that credit should be taken within 6 months/1 year from the date of invoice, could be applied retrospectively. The tribunal referred to previous decisions, including the case of Alok Master Batches Pvt Ltd vs. CCE & ST- Daman- 2021 VIL 170 CESTAT-AHD, which held that the limitation of 6 months provided by the notification was not applicable to invoices issued before the notification's effective date. The tribunal also cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Global Ceramics Private Limited and Ors.-2019-TIOL-1129-HC-DEL-CUS, which supported the view that the six-month limitation did not apply to invoices issued prior to the notification date. The tribunal further referenced the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Industrial Cables, which concluded that no period of limitation was prescribed by any statutory provision for the relevant period, and the courts could not import any specific period of limitation by implication. Similarly, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Sawrup Electricals Ltd held that the provisions of Section 11B of the Act were not applicable to Modvat credit governed by Rules 57A to 57P of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and that no limitation period was prescribed for availing Modvat credit during the relevant period. Conclusion: Based on the settled legal position and the absence of any statutory time limit prescribed during the relevant period, the tribunal concluded that the Cenvat credit could not be denied on the ground of limitation. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The tribunal also set aside the personal penalty imposed on Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastaw, allowing both appeals with consequential relief in accordance with the law.
|
