Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 4 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - credit on inputs lying in stock, work in progress and finished goods as on the date of rescinding of the exemption notification in terms of sub-rule 2 (3) of CCR, 2004 - credit denied on the ground that, in terms of proviso to Rule 4 (1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, credit can be availed only within one year from the date of invoice - credit was sought to be availed after rescinding of N/N. 62/1995-CE dated 16.03.1995 - HELD THAT:- The provisions of Rule 4 are very clear as regards the time limit for availment of Cenvat credit. It is founs that the provisions of Rules cannot be read in isolation. The entire set of Rules covering availment/utilization of credit i.e., CCR, 2004, has to be read in a holistic manner and interpreted in a harmonious manner. The non obstante clause in Rule 3 (2) is not with reference to the entire Cenvat Credit Rules but, with respect to sub-rule 1 of Rule 3 alone. It means to say that the provisions of other Rules will have to be followed and the only relaxation given is with respect to availment of credit in transition from manufacture of exempted goods to manufacture of dutiable goods - thus, even the transitional credit will be subjected to the provisions of Rule 4 (1) of CCR, 2004. Time limitation - HELD THAT:-It is abundantly clear that the appellants have put the department to notice vide their letter dated 29.04.2016 and ER-1 Returns. Therefore, it was not open for the department to issue SCN dated 27.06.2019 after the lapse of more than two years there too alleging suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty etc. We find that there is not even an iota of truth in the allegation of the department as per the records of the case. Moreover, looking into the fact that the appellants are a company under the Ministry of Defence intention to evade payment of duty cannot be alleged - under the facts and circumstances of the case, even any other company could not have been charged with suppression of facts with an intention to evade payment of duty. The appellants have though not made out a case on merits of the issue, have certainly made out a strong case in their favour on limitation and succeed on this count - SCN is time barred - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|