9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n whispering about the applicability of various decisions referred to and relied upon by the appellant which clearly covers the issue in their favour. This attitude of Commissioner (Appeals) reflects on his pre-determined mind to reject the appeals in a mechanical manner, thus putting the litigant into difficulty, apart from the increasing the burden and pendency of litigation at the higher level. Reliance placed in the case of M/S INDIAN POTASH LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST, MEERUT [ 2018 (10) TMI 1367 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] wherein it was clearly held that the six month limitation provided with effect from 01/09/2014 would not apply to the cenvatable invoices issued prior to said date. However, the fact that the invoices in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urse of adjudication the appellant took a categorical stand that in as much as the invoices in question were issued prior to 1st September 2014, the provisions of time restriction as provided in Rule 4 (7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules would not apply to them. 3. However, the said plea of the appellant was not accepted by Original Adjudicating Authority, who denied the credit and confirmed the demands along with interest and imposition of penalty. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the orders and hence the present two appeals. 4. We find from the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant has referred to and relied upon various precedent decisions of the Tribunal laying down that the time re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) TMI 1426-CESTAT New Delhi] (iv) Suryadev Alloys and Power Pvt Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST Central Excise, Chennai [2018 (11) TMI 1019-CESTAT Chennai] (v) Umesh Engineering Works vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru West [2019 (1) TMI 1158-CESTAT Bangalore] (vi) Sarda Energy and Minerals Ltd. vs. CCE ST, Raipur [2019 (4) TMI 473-CESTAT New Delhi] Wherein it was clearly held that the six month limitation provided with effect from 01/09/2014 would not apply to the cenvatable invoices issued prior to said date. The other decisions relied upon by the Ld. Advocate are also to the same effect but multiplying the precedent decisions would not make a difference as it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
