9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 580 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - credit was availed after one year from the date of issue of invoices - HELD THAT - 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. An identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in VIJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAW AND ALOK MASTERBATCHES LTD VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -DAMAN 2021 (4) TMI 804 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD and held that in respect of invoices issued prior to the amendment, the time limit prescribed in the amended Rule 4(1) and 4(7) shall not apply. In respect of invoices issued prior to the amendment, the time limit prescribed in the amended Rule 4(1) and 4(7) shall not apply - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
Whether the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit on input service when availed after one year from the date of issue of invoices. Analysis: The issue in the present appeal revolves around the entitlement of the appellant to cenvat credit on input service, specifically when the credit was availed after one year from the date of issue of invoices. The appellant argued that since the invoices were issued before the amendment stipulating a time limit for availing cenvat credit, the subsequent amendment should not apply to deny the credit. The appellant relied on various judgments to support this argument, emphasizing the timing of the issue of invoices in relation to the regulatory changes. On the other hand, the Revenue, represented by the Authorized Representative, reiterated the findings of the impugned order and presented additional judgments to support their position. Upon careful consideration of the submissions from both sides and a thorough examination of the records, the Tribunal noted that while the appellant did avail the cenvat credit after one year from the date of issue of invoices, the invoices in question were issued prior to the amended Rule 4(1) which introduced a time limit for availing the credit. Citing relevant judgments, the Tribunal highlighted that when the time limit for taking credit was not prescribed at the time of issuing the invoices, subsequent amendments imposing such limits should not retroactively apply to those invoices. The Tribunal referred to a specific judgment involving a similar issue and concluded that the appellant was entitled to the cenvat credit since all the invoices on which the credit was claimed were issued before the effective date of the amendment. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the precedent established in a Delhi High Court judgment and reiterated by various Tribunals and High Courts, emphasizing that the time limit introduced in the amendment should not be applicable to invoices issued before the specified date. The Tribunal's analysis aligned with the settled legal principle that the timing of regulatory changes should not impact transactions that occurred before the changes took effect. Consequently, the Tribunal held in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of verifying the issuance dates of the invoices in question, directing the Original Adjudicating Authority to conduct this verification in association with the appellant to ensure accuracy. In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis and reliance on established legal principles and precedents led to the decision that the appellant was indeed entitled to the cenvat credit for invoices issued before the regulatory changes came into effect. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the timing of transactions in relation to regulatory amendments and ensuring that such changes do not unfairly impact past transactions.
|
