Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2019 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1175 - HC - Central ExciseEntitlement to Input Tax Credit - failure of the assessee/respondent to exercise option under Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - revenue’s argument is that Rule 6(3A) is not merely procedural but was binding upon the assessee, who could not have claimed the benefit of even proportionate credit or it would have otherwise been entitled to inputs service for which Cenvat Credit was admissible, without following the procedure - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice, in this case, covers two different periods – substantial part of that period was when Rule 6(3A) did not exist. During this time, adjudicating authorities were bound to follow the rule while granting inputs credit in respect of services that qualify for it, even while excluding the credit for noneligible services and activities. All that Rule 6(3A) has done is to streamline the procedure for apportioning credits to ensure that proportionate credit, to the extent admissible could be claimed for the business and ensure that the concerned adjudicating officers do not have to spend time on carrying out the exercise. The amendment i.e. procedure for apportionment under sub-rule 3(A) was facilitative and procedural. The entitlement to credit otherwise is in Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. It is not disputed that Cenvat credit can be given in respect of services only when the inputs services qualify for that benefit and not for other inputs which are not eligible for the process of manufacture. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|