9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... months has been extended to one year and if the Notification 21/2014 (supra) were to operate retrospectively, then the same effect would have been provided to the Notification No. 06/2015 as well. The Revenue authorities have erred in denying the benefit of cenvat credit on inputs and input services - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20007/2018-SM - 21665/2018 - Dated:- 15-10-2018 - Mr. P Dinesha, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri. G. Shivadass, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Madhup Sharan, Assistant Commissioner (AR) ORDER PER: P DINESHA This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the order of Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Mysore, dated 10.10.2017 wherein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so after the second proviso in sub rule (7) which read as under: .Provided also that the manufacturer or the provider of output service shall not take cenvat credit after six months of the date of issue of any of the documents specified in sub-rule (1) of rule 9. This was interpreted by the adjudicating authority to say that the said amendment effectively stipulated that manufacturer or the provider of output service shall not take credit under input‟ as well as input service‟ after six months of the date of issue of any of the documents specified in sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 . The above interpretation has been further elaborated by the adjudicating authority himself at page 2 paragraph 4 of his order. On appeal by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it can be safely assumed that the amendment would apply to invoices raised on or after the said date of amendment. In the light of the later amendment vide Notification No. 06/2015, the period of six months has been extended to one year and if the Notification 21/2014 (supra) were to operate retrospectively, then the same effect would have been provided to the Notification No. 06/2015 as well. 2.2 The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal has decided a similar issue, in the case of M/s. Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Pune-I reported in [2018-TIOL-2455-CESTAT-MUM] wherein after considering the pleadings, the Bench has concluded as under : 6. The short issue involved in the present appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
