9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quently, the credit would not be admissible to the appellant since the duty was paid during the period 02.04.2014-31.08.2014 and credit was availed on 28.02.2015. Time limitation - HELD THAT:- There is absolutely no ambiguity in the law and thus, the availment of credit after six months clearly amounts to misdeclaration, suppression and fraud - the extended period has been rightly invoked. Appeal dismissed - Decided against appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 11846 of 2018-SM - A/11369/2019 - Dated:- 18-7-2019 - HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL), MR. RAJU Present For the Appellant: Shri Amal Dave, Adv. Present For the Respondent: Shri S.N. Gohil, Supdt. (AR) ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Ld. AR relies on the impugned order. He also relied on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case JCB India Ltd. vs. Union of India reported at 2018 (15) G.S.T.L. 145 (Bom.). He argued that the Cenvat Credit Rules are strongly implemented as it seen as a concession granted and not as a right. He also relied on the decision in the case of SICGIL Industrial Gases Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Cus. Anand. FO no. A/13086/2017 dated 12/10/2017. 4. I have gone through rival submission. I find that it is not in dispute that when the credit was taken i.e. on 28.02.2015, proviso to sub rule (7) of Rule 4 of CCR provided that such credit could not have been availed. I find significant force in the argument of Ld. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... careful consideration, I find that the provisions inserted in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on 11.7.2014 reads as under: Provided also that the manufacturer or 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 It can be seen from the above reproduced provision, the Rule specifically mandate that cenvat credit shall not be taken after six months of the date of issue of any of the documents. I have no hesitation to hold that this proviso will apply from the date 1.9.2014 for the availment of cenvat credit after that date. Undisputedly, the case in hand, the cenvat credit was availed on documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n on it did not amount to manufacture then for the reason that no new product came into existence, payment of duty would have amounted to reversal of credit on the same goods. Moreover, in that case if the process did not amounted to manufacture, there was no Central Excise levy and therefore, since the amount was paid by reversal of Cenvat Credit where no Cenvat reversal liability arise. In those circumstances, it was held that the Cenvat Credit cannot be denied. In view of that I find that the decision relied upon by the appellant are in totally different facts. 4.1 I also find that the Ld. Counsel has raised the point of limitation. I find that the proviso to sub rule (7) of Rule 4 of CCR clearly prescribes as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
