M\/s Indian Potash Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central GST, Meerut
Central Excise
2018 (10) TMI 1367 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – 2019 (369) E.L.T. 742 (Tri. – All.)
CESTAT ALLAHABAD – AT
Dated:- 25-10-2018
E\/70551\/2018-EX[SM] – FINAL ORDER NO- 72484 \/ 2018
Central Excise
Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate for Appellant
\nShri Pawan Kumar Singh, Supdt (AR), for Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: Archana Wadhwa
\nAs per facts on record the appellants, who were engaged in the manufacture of V.P. Sugar and Molasses, availed the benefit of Cencat credit of duty paid on various raw materials during the month of December, 2014 and March, 2015. As per the objections raised by the audit, such availment was not pe<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 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 such restriction created w.e.f. 01.09.2014, inasmuch as, the notification cannot be held to be retrospective. As regards the availment of credit in respect of capital goods, they contended that no such restriction was introduced for <\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n e Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner 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. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Indian Potash Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central GST, MeerutCentral Excise2018 (10) TMI 1367 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – 2019 (369) E.L.T. 742 (Tri. – All.)CESTAT ALLAHABAD – ATDated:- 25-10-2018E\/70551\/2018-EX[SM] – FINAL ORDER NO- 72484 \/ 2018Central ExciseSmt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate for Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Supdt (AR), for Respondent … Continue reading “M\/s Indian Potash Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central GST, Meerut”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14691","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14691","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14691"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14691\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14691"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14691"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14691"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nAs such, I find that the issue stands decided in favour of the assessee by the above referred decision of the Tribunal.
\n6. As regards the Cenvat credit in respect of capital goods, I find that the same was 50% remaining part of the total involved <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n