Byju’s Second Rights Issue for Raising Funds Halted by NCLT  ||  Byju’s Second Rights Issue for Raising Funds Halted by NCLT  ||  Gau. HC: Party Can Invoke Arbitration Despite Alternative Remedy Available Under RERA Act  ||  Mad. HC: Sexual Harassment at Workplace a ‘Continuing Offence’ If Causes Constant Trauma and Fear  ||  Delhi High Court: U/S 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Scope of Inquiry is Limited  ||  Meghalaya High Court: Bail Plea Rejected Despite Delay in Trial  ||  Pat. HC: After Commen. of Trial, Amen. of Pleadings Allowed if Required to Arrive at Just Conclusion  ||  Gau. HC: If Delay in Filing Matri. Appeal Not Satisfactorily Expl., Bar Against Remarriage Not Applic  ||  Bombay High Court: Release of Film "Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar" Restrained  ||  Mad. HC: Separate Norms for Transgender Persons in Employment and Education    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved