Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

N R Agarwal Industries Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Vapi - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (14 Dec 2021)

When the time limit for taking credit was not prescribed on date of issue of invoices, the subsequent amendment stipulating the time limit for availing the credit shall not apply

MANU/CS/0164/2021

Excise

The issue involved in the present appeal is that whether the Appellant is entitled for cenvat credit on the input service, when the credit was availed after one year from the date of issue of invoices.

The Appellant submits that, though the credit was taken after one year from the date of issue of invoices but in all the cases the date of issue of invoices are prior to the amendment Notification of Rule 4(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 according to which the Appellant are supposed to take cenvat credit within six months / one year from the date of issue of invoices. He submits that, since the invoices in question were issue prior to the insertion of stipulated time period of six months / one year, this amendment fixing the time limit shall not apply, accordingly, the cenvat credit cannot be denied.

There is no dispute that, the Appellant have availed the cenvat credit after one year from the date of issue of invoices. However, the dates of issue of invoices are undisputedly prior to the amended Rule 4(1) whereby the time limit of six months/ one year form the date of issue of invoices was fixed for availing the cenvat credit. In various judgements, it has been held that, when on the date of issue of invoices, the time limit for taking credit was not prescribed, therefore, in respect of those invoices, the subsequent amendment stipulating the time limit for availing the credit shall not apply.

In case of Global Ceramics Private Limited and Ors. vs. The Principal Commissioner of Central Excise and Ors., Appellant is held entitled for the Cenvat Credit since all the invoices on which cenvat credit was claimed were issued prior to 1st September, 2014.

The identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal and held that in respect of invoices issued prior to the amendment, the time limit prescribed in the amended Rule 4(1) shall not apply. Accordingly, the appellant are entitled for the cenvat credit. The impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed.

Tags : ASSESSMENT   CENVAT CREDIT   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved