9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 634 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of CENVAT Credit - credit availed by the appellant beyond the period of six months prescribed under N/N. 21/2014 dated 11.07.2014 - whether the appellant is eligible to avail the Cenvat Credit in December 2014, on the basis of the invoices issued in the month of March and April 2013? HELD THAT - The issue id no longer res integra, as the same issue has already been decided by the Tribunal in the case of M/S. VOSS EXOTECH AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-I 2018 (3) TMI 1048 - CESTAT MUMBAI where it was held that Notification No. 21/2014-S.T. (N.T.), dated 11- 7-2014 should be applicable to those cases wherein the invoices were issued on or after 11-7-2014 for the reason that notification was not applicable to the invoices issued prior to the date of notification therefore at the time of issuance of the invoices no time limit was prescribed. Therefore in respect of those invoices the limitation of six months cannot be made applicable. Thus, the time limit of six months prescribed under Notification No.21/2014 dated 11.07.2014 is applicable only in respect of the invoices issued after 11.07.2014. As the invoices in this case were issued prior to this date , the time limit of six months is not applicable. Accordingly, the appellant is eligible for the Cenvat Credit availed based on the invoices issued in the month of March and April 2013, which is beyond a period of six months prescribed under Notification No. 21 / 2014 dated 11.07.2014. The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
- Denial of Cenvat Credit beyond prescribed time limit under Notification No.21/2014 dated 11.07.2014. The appellant availed Cenvat Credit based on supplementary invoices issued by the supplier in March and April 2013, but claimed the credit in December 2014, which was beyond the six-month period prescribed under Notification No.21/2014 dated 11.07.2014. The department denied the credit on this basis. The Counsel for the appellant argued that the time limit prescribed under Notification No.21/2014 dated 11.07.2014 should not apply to invoices issued prior to 11.07.2014, citing precedents where Tribunals have held similarly. The appellant sought allowance of their appeal on this ground. The main issue to be determined was the eligibility of the appellant to avail Cenvat Credit in December 2014 based on invoices from March and April 2013, which exceeded the six-month limit set by Notification No.21/2014 dated 11.07.2014. The Tribunal referred to relevant case law to address this issue. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision involving Voss Exotech Automotive Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that the time limit under Notification No.21/2014 dated 11.07.2014 should only apply to invoices issued after 11.07.2014. Since the invoices in question were issued before this date, the six-month limit was deemed inapplicable, allowing the appellant to claim the Cenvat Credit. In line with the decisions in similar cases such as Indian Potash Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST, Meerut and Essel Propack Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T., Daman, the Tribunal concluded that the time limit specified in Notification No.21/2014 dated 11.07.2014 is not applicable to invoices issued prior to 11.07.2014. Therefore, the appellant was deemed eligible for the Cenvat Credit claimed beyond the prescribed six-month period. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, based on the interpretation that the time limit under Notification No.21/2014 dated 11.07.2014 did not extend to invoices issued before the specified date.
|
