2019 (1) TMI 1426 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – invoices were more than one year old – time limit for issuance of invoice – Held that:- The SCN has alleged that the cenvat credit has wrongly been taken by the appellant on the ground that invoices were more than one year old. Limitation of one year for availing credit from the date of invoice came into statute only in the year 2015. It was vide Notification No. 21/14 dated 01.09.2014 that the limitation period of six months was introduced into statute for the impugned periods. This observation is a definite ground to hold that SCN has been issued based on wrong facts. Since SCN is the foundation of the Revenue case, the adjudication cannot sustain where SCN is issued on wrong facts.
–
Confirmation of demand only for want of the requisite documents – Held that:- The only relevant document for the purpose is the invoice. Apparently and admittedly, four of the impugned invoices are very much recorded in Annexure A of the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e Department observed that the appellant had taken input credit of ₹ 4,53,909/- wrongly on the invoices which were more than one year old. Resultantly, the said cenvat credit was proposed to not to be allowed rather to be recovered from the appellant alongwith the interest and the appropriate penalty. The said demand was initially confirmed by Order-in-Original No. 26 dated 28.03.2018 and was reconfirmed by the order under challenge. 2. Ms. Priyanka Goel, Ld. Advocate for the appellant while submitting on behalf of appellant has mentioned that the concept of limitation for taking cenvat credit was introduced only vide Notification No. 21/14 dated 01.09.2014 vide which a period of six months was stipulated for taking credit to commence w.e.f. the date of the invoice. It is impressed upon that the invoices as are taken into consideration by the department while issuing the SCN are all prior the date of this Notification as is apparent from annexure A to SCN. Counsel has relied upon
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
relevant documents/ evidence. Order is therefore sustainable and appeal deserves dismissal. 4. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, I observe that the SCN has alleged that the cenvat credit has wrongly been taken by the appellant on the ground that invoices were more than one year old. Limitation of one year for availing credit from the date of invoice came into statute only in the year 2015. It was vide Notification No. 21/14 dated 01.09.2014 that the limitation period of six months was introduced into statute for the impugned periods. This observation is a definite ground to hold that SCN has been issued based on wrong facts. Since SCN is the foundation of the Revenue case, the adjudication cannot sustain where SCN is issued on wrong facts. 5. Now coming to the aspect that the adjudicating authority has confirmed the proposal of SCN only for want of the requisite documents, I observe that the only relevant document for the purpose is the invoice. Apparently and adm
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =