M\/s. Suryadev Alloys and Power Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 1019 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 14-11-2018
Appeal No. E\/42032\/2018 – Final Order No. 42881\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
\nMs. S. Sridevi, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nBrief facts are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of MS bars, MS billets etc. and are availing the facility of CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services. During the course of audit, it was noticed that for the period September 2014 to September 2015, the appellant had wrongly availed credit to the tune of Rs. 21,35,493\/- beyond the time limit of six months \/ one year in contravention of Rule 4(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Show cause notice dated 2.5.2017 was issued proposing to recover the wrongly availed credit and to impose penalt<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n the appeal paper book and submitted that all the invoices are dated 14.6.2012 to 9.1.2014. and are issued prior to 1.9.2014. The time limit for availing credit was prescribed or has come into effect only with effect from 1.9.2014. Thus the invoices on which credit has been later availed by the appellant having been issued prior to 1.9.2014, the credit availed by the appellant is correct and proper. She clarified that the credit though availed by the appellant is after 1.9.2014, since the invoices are prior to 1.9.2014, the time limit provided in amended provision does not apply. She relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Voss Exotech Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune – 2018 (3) TMI 1048-CESTAT Mumbai; M\/s. Hariprabha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur – 2018 (9) TMI 19 – CESTAT Mumbai and M\/s. Indian Potash Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut – 2018 (10) TMI 1367-CESTAT Ahmedabad. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n supra), wherein the Tribunal has discussed as under:- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Suryadev Alloys and Power Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai OuterCentral Excise2018 (11) TMI 1019 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 14-11-2018Appeal No. E\/42032\/2018 – Final Order No. 42881\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Ms. S. Sridevi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for … Continue reading “M\/s. Suryadev Alloys and Power Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer”<\/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-15099","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15099","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=15099"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15099\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15099"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15099"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15099"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The ld. AR Shr<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n“4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, I find that for denial of the credit, the Notification No.21\/14-CE(NT) dated 11.7.2014 was invoked wherein six months period is available for taking credit. As per the facts of the case, credit was taken in respect of the invoices issued in the month of March and April 2014 in November 2014. On going through the notification No.6\/2015-CE(NT) dated 1.3.2015, the period available for taking credit is 1 year in terms of the notification, the invoices issued in the month of March and April 2014 become eligible for cenvat credit. I also observed that the notification No.21\/14-ST(NT) dated 11.7.2014 should be applicable to those cases wherein the invoices were issued on or after 11.7.2014 for the reason that notification was not applicable to the invoices issued prior to the date of notification therefore at the time of issuance of the invoices no time limit was pres<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n