Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2019 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1432 - DELHI HIGH COURTCENVAT Credit - import of ceramic tiles between June, 2010 and January, 2014 - CCESC declined to permit adjustment of the duty already paid and Cenvat Credit - amendment to the Rule 4 of the CCRs with effect from 11th July, 2014 - Cenvat credit after 6 months of the date of issue of any of the documents in Rule 9 (1) - HELD THAT:- There is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the Assesses in both the cases that the above amended provision cannot be given retrospective effect - As explained in EICHER MOTORS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [1999 (1) TMI 34 - SUPREME COURT] the rule of lapse of credit lying with it unutilized on the date of amendment, cannot be applied to the goods manufactured prior to the date of the amendment. This is based on the principle that the right to adjustment of tax on final products accrues to an Assessee on the date when they paid the tax on the raw materials and that right would continue until the facility available thereto gets worked out. In the present case, the credit accrued when CVD was paid on finished goods deemed to be cleared from home consumption when the dealers sold the goods at higher price by altering the MRP. The right to the Cenvat Credit accrued on the very day when the inputs were received. Consequently, in the present case, the Court is satisfied that the Amendment to Rule 4 (1) CCRs prescribing a time limit for claiming Cenvat Credit will not apply to the consignments in the present case where the import took place prior to the date of the amendment and the deemed manufacture took place when the MRP was altered, which also happened prior to the amendment. In other words, the CVD paid by the BRCPL will have to be permitted to be adjusted against the CE duty settled as will the service tax paid on the input services. Validity of order - non signature of all member who has heard the matter - HELD THAT:- It is indeed true that the CCESC which heard the settlement application of the GCPL comprised of three members. Therefore, an order passed by just two of them, would obviously be unsustainable in law. Appeal disposed off.
|