TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, rejection of CENVAT credit on the ground of limitation is not sustainable in law. Case remanded back to the Original Authority to decide the claim of the appellant regarding CENVAT credit on inputs on the basis of documents which may be produced by the appellant in support of their claim - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/21047/2018-SM - Final Order No. 21810/2018 - Dated:- 27-11-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER G.B. Eswarappa For the Appellant Mr. K.B. Nanaiah, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 09.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner of (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Original No. 28/2010 dated 25.08.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II Commissionerate. 2.2 Against Order-in-Appeal No. 278/2011 dated 26.09.2011, appellant filed an appeal before Hon ble CESTAT, Bangalore vide Appeal No. E/3168/2011. The Hon ble CESTAT, Bangalore, vide Final Order No. 25404/2013 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. During the course of hearing, assessee had sought for the benefit of CENVAT credit on inputs as the duty is being paid on the supplies made to M/s. HAL, Bangalore. However, Hon ble CESTAT has rejected the same. 2.3 Consequent to the above Final Order, appellant has paid the duty of ₹ 30,25,728/- along with interest of ₹ 17,27,240/- and vide their le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2015 wherein the words six months have been substituted by words one year in the third proviso of Rule 4(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2.4 During the scrutiny of ER-1 Returns for the month of January 2016, it was observed that the assessee has availed CENVAT credit of ₹ 17,65,667/- on inputs pertaining to the period 2009-10. It appeared that appellant availed ineligible credit of ₹ 17,65,667/- during the month of January 2016, in violation of Rule 4 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 21/2014-CE (NT) dated 11.07.2014 as amended by Notification No. 06/2015-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2015. A Notice demanding an amount of ₹ 17,65,667/- under the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise imposed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther submitted that in pursuance of the CESTAT Order, they have paid the duty along with interest and therefore they are rightly eligible to avail CENVAT credit. He further submitted that Rule 4 of CCR, 2004 was amended w.e.f. 01.09.2014/01.03.2015 prescribing the period of limitation for availing the CENVAT credit but the same cannot be made applicable retrospectively applicable for the period June 2009 to January 2010. He also submitted that the Commissioner (A) has wrongly held that CESTAT, Bangalore has rejected the prayer of the appellant for claiming CENVAT credit on inputs used in the manufacture of final product supplied to M/s. HAL, Bangalore. He further submitted that the Tribunal was unable to consider the matter because there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I find that during the period of dispute, there was no time limitation prescribed under Rule 4 for claiming the CENVAT credit on inputs used in the manufacture of final product. Therefore, rejection of CENVAT credit on the ground of limitation is not sustainable in law. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the Original Authority to decide the claim of the appellant regarding CENVAT credit on inputs on the basis of documents which may be produced by the appellant in support of their claim. Consequently, the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Original Authority to decide the claim of the appellant without considering the time limit as prescribed in Rule 4 of the CCR, 2004. The Original Authority will d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
