9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide Notification No. 21/2014-CE (NT) dated 11.07.2014 which prescribe the time limit of six month from the date of issue of invoice for taking the credit. He submits that the amendment of dated 11.07.2014 is applicable only in respect of those invoices which are issued after 11.07.2014. The Notification or amended Rule cannot be made applicable retrospectively. This issue is no longer res-Integra, in view of the following judgments:- Global Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi-I, 2019 (26) GSTL 470 (Del.) Voss Exotech Automotive Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune-1, 2018 (363) ELT 1141 (Tri.- Mumbai) Vijay Kumar Shrivastaw and Alok Masterbatches Ltd. v. CCE & ST, Daman, 2021 (4) TMI 804 AHMEDABAD CESTAT N R Agarwal Industrial Ltd. v. CCE & ST, Surat-I, 2021 (9) TMI 1261 CESTAT AHMEDABAD N R Agarwal Industrial Ltd. v. CCE & ST, Surat-I, 2021 (11) TMI 243 CESTAT AHMEDABAD Essel Propack Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex. & ST, Daman, 2022 (379) ELT 123 (Tri.- Ahmd.) Sanghvi Marmo Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST, Jodhpur, 2020 (33) GSTL 232 (Tri.- Del.) 3. Shri G Nair, Learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Pvt. Ltd (Supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court also expressed the same view that the amendment effective from 11.07.2014 cannot have retrospective effect, the relevant paragraph of the order is reproduced below:- "15. In the present case, we are concerned with the amendment to the Rule 4 of the CCRs with effect from 11th July, 2014, which reads thus : "Provided also that the manufacturer or the provider of output services shall not take Cenvat credit after 6 months of the date of issue of any of the documents in sub rule (1) of rule 9." 16. It is in terms of this amendment that it was provided that the Cenvat Credit must be taken within one year of the issue of invoice for input goods or input services. 17. There is substance in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Assesses in both the cases that the above amended provision cannot be given retrospective effect. As explained in Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) the rule of lapse of credit lying with it unutilized on the date of amendment, cannot be applied to the goods manufactured prior to the date of the amendment. This is based on the principle that the right to adjustment of tax on final products ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... G.S.T.L. 3 (Guj.)] followed the dictum of the Supreme Court in Jayam & Co. v. Assistant Commissioner (supra) and reiterated that the input tax credit could not be denied on the basis of an amendment, which is prospective. The question dealt with by the High Court was whether Section 140A(3)(iv) of the CGST Act, which declined the Cenvat credit in relation to goods purchased prior to one year from the appointed date, could be given retrospective effect. In answering the question in the negative, the Gujarat High Court held as under : "30. To sum up we are of the opinion that the benefit of credit of eligible duties on the purchases made by the first stage dealer as per the then existing CENVAT credit rules was a vested right. By virtue of clause (iv) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 140A such right has been taken away with retrospective effect in relation to goods which were purchased prior to one year from the appointed day. This retrospectivity given to the provision has no rational or reasonable basis for imposition of the condition. The reasons cited in limiting the exercise of rights have no co-relation with the advent of GST regime. Same factors, parameters and considerations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Alloys and Power Pvt Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai [2018 (11) TMI 1019-CESTAT Chennai] 4 E/53851-53852/2018-[DB] (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 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 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. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AX. held that the limitation of 6 months provided as per notification no 21/2014-CE(N.T.) is not applicable in cases where the invoices were issued before the notification came into effect i.e. 01.09.2014. the Delhi bench in said case has relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of GLOBAL CERAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.-2019-TIOL-1129-HC-DEL-CUS. The relevant para of said judgment of BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD. (Supra) is reproduced below. 5. Having expressed our anguish, we note that the issue is no more res Integra. Reliance can be placed to the following decisions; (i) Indian Potash Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central GST, Meerut [2018 (10) TMI 1367-CESTAT Allahabad] (ii) Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Tax [2018 (10) TMI 1366- CESTAT Bangalore] (iii) Industrial Filters & Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CGST & CE, Indore[2019 (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] 4 E/53851-53852/2018-[DB] (v) Umesh Engineering Works vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru West [2019 (1) TMI 1158- CESTAT Bangalore] (vi) Sarda Energy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
