Hariprabha Chemicals P. Ltd. Versus CCGST, Kolhapur
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 19 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 14-8-2018
Appeal No. E/86454/2018 – A/87094/2018
Central Excise
Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial)
Shri D.H. Nadkarni, Advocate for the appellant
Shri Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (AR) for the respondent
ORDER
Denial of availment of cenvat credit of Rs. 16,84,841/- on a single day on 30.09.2014 after notification no. 21/14- CE(NT) effective from 01.09.2014 against past five invoices pertaining to the period between 05.09.2010 and 22.08.2013 has been challenged in this appeal after such denial of the first adjudicating authority has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Tax, Pune.
2. Factual backdrop of the case is that appellant company was availing cenvat credit of capital goods and input services as well as using those towards central excise duty on finished excisable goods. There was no restriction for such ad
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
1999 (114) ELT 964, ld. Counsel for the appellant Shri D.H. Nadkarni argued that Notification can have prospective effect only and should be considered applicable to all documents/ invoices raised after 11.07.2014, on which date the amendment was made. Prior to that, no stipulated time was prescribed to avail the said credit. Credit in respect of pending invoices has been availed and utilised immediately after the Notification upon arising of contingencies concerning discharge of central excise duty on finished excisable goods and therefore there was no malafide intention that can be inferred from the conduct of the appellant to invoke extended period. He further submits that in view of settled principle of law after pronouncement of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. [2016 (332) ELT 411 (MP)] and Bhushan Steel & Strip Ltd. 1999 (114) ELT 964 (T) credit cannot be denied on goods received against duty paying document before issue of such Notificati
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d to its application and no explanation even by way of clarificatory orders by the department is found in respect of application of the Rule to the invoices raised prior to the amendment date or about adjustment of such credit in so called breathing period of nearly one month and three weeks during which period, situation might not have arisen to avail such credit since production is influenced by lot of factors including rainy season, labour problem etc. The clarificatory order issued by the CBEC Board vide Circular no. 990/14/2014-CX-8 dated 19.11.2014 which has been referred in the show-cause notice is unrelated to the issue in hand since it has exempted the period of limitation in three contingencies if within six months credit was taken for the first time and subsequently reversed. Under such situation, it would be irrational to deny credit would be given to the documents against which credit might have been availed, had the insertion of proviso stipulating six months to avail suc
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =