2018 (10) TMI 1367 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI – CENVAT Credit – time limit of invoices raised – the invoices, on the basis of which the credit was availed, was older than six months – N/N. 21/2014-CE(NT) dated 11.07.2014 made effective w.e.f. 01.09.2014.
–
CENVAT Credit – capital goods – availment of credit of 50% of the balanced credit required to be availed in the subsequent financial year – Held that:- Even though there is no such amendment in Rule 4 for availing the Cenvat credit of duty paid on the capital goods within a period of six months, the same stands denied by Commissioner (Appeals) even after observing that there is no such requirement of law – there is no justification for denial of credit – credit allowed.
–
Whether the demand is barred by limitation? – Held that:- The entire credit was availed by the appellant by reflecting the same in their Cenvat credit records. As such, there cannot be held to be any suppression or misstatement on their part with a malafide
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he date of issuance of the invoices. Inasmuch as, the appellant had availed the Cenvat credit beyond the period of six months, the revenue was of the view that the same is inadmissible to them. Similarly, in respect of capital goods, the appellant availed the credit to the extent of ₹ 6,04,672/-, which was 50% of the balanced credit required to be availed in the subsequent financial year. 3. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 09.12.2016 proposing to deny the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant during the period December, 2014 to March, 2015. The appellant, during the course of adjudication took a categorical stand that prior to 01.09.2014, there was no restriction to avail the credit within the period of six months from the date of issuance of the invoices. Inasmuch as, in the present case the invoices in question were issued either in the year 2013 or in the first half of year 2014, the same would not be covered by s
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ssioner of Central Excise, Pune-I vide Final Order No.A/85346/2018 dated 16.02.2018 has observed that Notification No.21/2014-CE(NT) dated 11.07.2014 should be applicable to those cases wherein the invoices were issued on or after 11.07.2014 for the reason that notification was not applicable to the invoices issued prior to the date of notification, therefore, at the time issuance of invoices no time limit was prescribed and limitation of six months cannot be made applicable. As such, I find that the issue stands decided in favour of the assessee by the above referred decision of the Tribunal. 6. As regards the Cenvat credit in respect of capital goods, I find that the same was 50% remaining part of the total involved Cenvat credit in the capital goods. Even though there is no such amendment in Rule 4 for availing the Cenvat credit of duty paid on the capital goods within a period of six months, the same stands denied by Commissioner (Appeals) even after observing that there is no such
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =