9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mit has been extended from six months to one year by substitution in the Notification No.21/2014-CE (N.T.) dated 11.07.2014, the time limit shall be taken as one year and as per the submission of learned counsel, the invoices issued after the date of notification dated 11.07.2014 credit was taken within one year. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.12021 of 2018 - A/12391/2021 - Dated:- 24-9-2021 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Sh. S. Suriyanarayanan (Adv.) for the Appellant Sh. Prakash Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellant is entitle for Cenvat Credit beyond six months from the date of issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.07.2014 the assessee is entitle to Cenvat Credit only within six months from the date of issuance of invoice. This issue has been considered in various judgments and it was interpreted that all the invoices issued prior to the issuance of the notification dated 11.07.2014, the notification shall not apply consequently, there is no time limit for taking credit in respect of those invoices. In the present case, most of the invoices were issued after the date of notification, since the time limit has been extended from six months to one year by substitution in the Notification No.21/2014-CE (N.T.) dated 11.07.2014, the time limit shall be taken as one year and as per the submission of learned counsel, the invoices issued after the date of no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.) 3. On the other hand Shri. Dharmendra Kanjani, Learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) appearing for the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He also placed reliance on the following judgments:- A/11369/19 Dtd. 12.07.2019- BHARAT RESINS LTD. Vs. CCE, SURAT-I A/13086/17 Dtd.12.10.2017-SICGIL INDUSTRIAL GASES LTD Vs. CCE, ANAND 2018 (12) GSTL 330 (Tri-Del)- J K LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD Vs. CCE, JAIPUR-II 4. I have heard both the sides and perused the records. I find that the major issue to be decided is that the cenvat credit was availed after 01.09.2014, in respect of invoices issue prior to 01.09.2014. In the light of the amendment notification no 21/2014-CE(N.T.) whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 (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 is a settled law. Further, not only various Tribunals decisions but Hon ble Delhi High Court also in case of Global Ceramics Private Limited and Ors. vs. The Principal Commissioner of Central Excise and Ors. W.P. (C) 6706/2016 and W.P. (C) 9152/2016 has also observed to the same effect in paragraph 11.4 of their decisions. 6. As such, we find that the issue is no more res Integra and stands ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
