2022 (11) TMI 801 - AT - Service Tax
CENVAT Credit - contravention of provisions of Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and Rule 3 and Rule 4(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - whether the 3rd Proviso of Rule 4(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as introduced w.e.f. 01.09.2014, has got retrospective effect? - HELD THAT:- The 3rd proviso was introduced w.e.f. 01.09.2014 and there is no stipulation in the amending Notification that the same shall apply retrospectively. Rules of interpretation provide that whenever any statute is newly added, the same has got only prospective effect unless it is specifically provided in the amending statute or the amendment is by way of substitution of an existing provision mainly by way of clarification or removal of defects - the said proviso to Rule 4(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has got only prospective effect.
Tribunal in the case of M/S. VOSS EXOTECH AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-I [2018 (3) TMI 1048 - CESTAT MUMBAI] has observed that Notification No.21/2014-CE(NT) dated 11.07.2014 should be applicable to those cases, wherein the invoices were issued on or after 11.07.2014 for the reason that Notification was not applicable to the invoices issued prior to the date of Notification. Therefore, at the time of issuance of invoices, no time limit was prescribed and limitation of six months cannot be made applicable.
Appeal allowed - the issue stands decided in favour of the assessee.