TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1064X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RT], it is held that this amendment which was introduced by way of substitution is applicable retrospectively and the appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit on all the invoices which have been produced on record except one invoice for ₹ 27,810/- which is beyond one year from the amendment dt. 01/03/2015. The appellant is entitled to the CENVAT credit of ₹ 3,09 964/- which is within one year from the amendment vide N/N. 6/2015 dt. 01/03/2015 - appeal allowed in part. - ST/21624/2017-SM - 20849/2018 - Dated:- 26-6-2018 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Rajesh Kumar, CA For the Appellant Shri Madhupsharan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it to avail the CENVAT credit i.e. 6 months/one year. He further submitted that the time limit of 6 months was not existing prior to 01/09/2014 and this rule cannot be applied retrospectively for the credit of services already received prior to that date as the rights in the same has already accrued. In this regard, he relied upon the provisions of Section 38A which is reproduced herein below:- 38A Effect of amendments, etc., of rules, notifications or orders-Where any rule, notification or order made or issued under this Act or any notification or order issued under such rule, is amended repealed, superseded or rescinded, then, unless a different intention appears, such amendment, repeal supersession or rescinding shall not- (a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Notification No.6/2015-CE dt 01/03/2015. It is his further submission that this amendment should also be treated as retrospective by which the credit availed by the appellant will become valid credit. He also relied upon the following decisions:- i. CCE ST, Bangalore Vs. Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2015(318) ELT 240 Kar.)] ii. GOI Vs. Indian Tobacco Association [2005 (187) ELT 162 (SC)] 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the said amendment made by Notification No.6/2015-CE dt 01/03/2015 cannot be treated as retrospective and it is prospective. He further submitted that the appellant availed the credit on 31/12/2014 and the time limit for the first time was introduced from 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27,810/- which is beyond one year from the amendment dt. 01/03/2015. Further I find that the decision relied upon by the learned AR in the case of Ruby Confectionery Pvt. Ltd. is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case whereas the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fosroc Chemicals is squarely applicable and therefore by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court cited supra, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to the CENVAT credit of ₹ 3,09 964/- which is within one year from the amendment vide Notification No.6/2015 dt. 01/03/2015. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed to the extent of ₹ 3,09,964/-. (Order was pronounced in Open Court on 26/06/2018) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
