9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4-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. Moreover for taking credit there is no statutory records prescribed the assessee s records were considered as account for Cenvat credit. Even though the credit was not entered in so-called RG-23A, Part-II, but it is recorded in the books of accounts, it will be considered as Cenvat credit was recorded. On this ground also it can be said that there is no delay in taking the credit. As per my above discussion, the appellant is entitled for the Cenvat credit hence the impugned order is set aside.' Conclusion - The time limit prescribed under Notification No. 21/2014-CE (NT) dated 11.07.2014 has no application in respect of the invoices issued prior to date of the said amendment in Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The impugned order is not sustainable - Appeal allowed. - HON ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the invoices related to such credit were issued before 11.07.2014. Therefore, in respect of those invoices, the amended Rule 4 vide Notification No. 21/2014-CE (NT) dated 11.07.2014 is not applicable and the credit could not have been denied on the ground of time bar. This issue has been considered in various judgments, some of the judgments are as under:- In the case of Voss Exotech Automotive Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) the Mumbai Tribunal has passed the following order:- 4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, I find that for denial of the credit, the Notification No. 21/2014-C.E. (N.T.), dated 11-7-2014 was invoked wherein six months period is available for taking credit. As per the facts of the case credit was taken in respect of the invoices issued in the month of March April 2014 in November 2014. On going through the Notification No. 6/2015-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2015 the period available for taking credit is 1 year in terms of the notification, the invoices issued in the month of March and April 2014 become eligible for Cenvat credit. I also observed that the Notification No. 21/2014-S.T. (N.T.), dated 11-7-2014 should be applicable to those cases w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India (supra). 18. In the present case, the credit accrued when CVD was paid on finished goods deemed to be cleared from home consumption when the dealers sold the goods at higher price by altering the MRP. The right to the Cenvat credit accrued on the very day when the inputs were received. 19. In Jayam Co. v. Assistant Commissioner - (2016) 96 VST 1 (SC) = 2018 (19) G.S.T.L. 3 (S.C.), it was held that a provision introduced for the first time cannot be given retrospective effect. It is further held as under : 11. Now it is a well-settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decisions that, unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new liability otherwise than as regards matters of procedure. The general rule as stated by Halsbury in Volume 36 of the Laws of England (Third Edition) and reiterated in several decisions of this court as well as English Courts is that - all statutes other than those which are merely declaratory or which relate only to matters of procedure or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) CCRs prescribing a time limit for claiming Cenvat Credit will not apply to the consignments in the present case where the import took place prior to the date of the amendment and the deemed manufacture took place when the MRP was altered, which also happened prior to the amendment. In other words, the CVD paid by the BRCPL will have to be permitted to be adjusted against the CE duty settled as will the service tax paid on the input services. In the case of Vijay Kumar Shrivastaw Alok Mastervatches Ltd (Supra), in this Tribunal taken the same view the relevant order is as under:- 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.) whether the claim of cenvat credit is time barred. I find that though there are various decision on the issue however, the Division Bench in the case of BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD. V/S. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CENTRAL TAX GOODS AND SERVICE TAX. held that the limitation of 6 months provided as per notification no 21/2014-CE(N. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit was claimed were issued prior to 01.09.2014. 5. The revenue is at liberty to verify this fact, therefore the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is set aside. Since the entire demand is set aside. The personal penalty imposed on Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastaw will also not sustain the same is also set aside. Both the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law . In another case of N R Agarwal Industrial Ltd (Supra) this Tribunal taking a consistence view passed the following order:- This appeal has been filed M/s. N R Agarwal Industries Ltd against denial of cenvat credit of invoices issue prior to dated 01.09.2014 on the ground that it was taken after the lapse a period of six months/one year. The issue under dispute relates to the applicability of Notification No. 21/2014-CE(NT) dated 11.07.2014 to the credit taken on invoices issued prior to 01.09.2014. Vide Notification No.21/2014-CE(NT) dated 11.07.2014 the following proviso was added In Sub rule (7) of Rule 4 Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. provided also that the manufacturer or the provider of output service shall not take cenvat credit after 6 months of the date of issue of any of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tled 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 settled in favour of the assessee. However, the fact that the invoices in question were prior to 01/09/2014 is required to be verified. The Original Adjudicating Authority is directed to do so, with the association of appellant to whom an opportunity would be given. 4.1 In view of the above decision which is based in Delhi High Court judgment of GLOBAL CERAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS (supra), I am of the view that the appellant is entitled for the Cenvat Credit since all the invoices on which cenvat credit was claimed were issued prior to 01.09.2014. 3. Relying on the aforesaid decision the appeal is allowed. In view of the above judgments, it is settled that the time limit prescribed under Notification No. 21/2014-CE (NT) dated 11.07.2014 has no application in respect of the invoices issued prior to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
