9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 21/2014-CE (NT) dated 11.07.2014 which has been brought into effect from 01.09.2014 for invoices issued prior to 01.09.2014 - HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res integra and covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Roquette Riddhi Siddhi Pvt. Ltd. V. CCE, Customs and Service Tax, Belgaum [2024 (1) TMI 1210 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], wherein it is held that 'appellants have correctly taken the cenvat credit on 18/09/2014 for the invoices issued prior to 01/09/2014.' The confirmation of demand of cenvat credit of Rs. 1,04,80,736/- on this count is unsustainable in law, accordingly, set aside. Since the appellant had submitted not to pursue the confirmation of cenvat credit of Rs. 1,75,320/- as they have already reversed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and equivalent penalty. Hence, the present appeal. 2. At the outset, the learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that there is no allegation in the show-cause notice that the inputs were not received in their factory and utilized in the manufacture of finished goods, but the allegation in denying cenvat credit of Rs. 1,04,80,736/- was solely on the ground that the input invoices were issued more than 6 months before the credit was availed. He has submitted that out of the total cenvat credit of Rs. 1,41,28,161/- availed in ER-1 filed in the month of October 2014, an amount of Rs. 1,04,87,376/- pertains to service tax received during the period January 2013 to April ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that no penalty be imposable as the same was taken under bonafide interpretation of the relevant Rule. 3. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner. He has submitted that the appellant had availed cenvat credit on documents issued between January 2013 and September 2014 in the month of October 2014 and hence, the credit for the period January 2013 to April 2014 was inadmissible. Further he has submitted that since proper documents had not been placed to establish the nexus, the learned adjudicating authority has rightly disallowed the credit of Rs. 1,75,320/- and imposed penalty. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. The short issue involved in the present appeal is whether the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h his findings on the Explanation 1 introduced with effect from 01/03/2015 are not available. As such we set aside a part of the impugned order, for the period post 01/03/2015 and remand the matter back to Commissioner to consider the Explanation 1 to sub Rule 1 of Rule 6 and give his findings on the same. We make it clear that we have not expressed our views on merits of the case and the assessee at liberty to contest the same before the Adjudicating Authority." 6.2 In view of this, we hold that the provisions of Rule 6 are not applicable to the appellants in these cases. Therefore, the appellants are not required to reverse the proportionate cenvat credit used in by-product while manufacturing their final product. Accordingly, the deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9/2014 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 - 2019-VIL-330-DEL-CE 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/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . .................... 22. Consequently, in the present case, the Court is satisfied that the Amendment to Rule 4(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." 6. Thus, the confirmation of demand of cenvat credit of Rs. 1,04,80,736/- on this count is unsustainable in law, accordingly, set aside. Since the appellant had submitted not to pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
