TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... meaning and the department has no means of verifying whether the credit was taken as per the Rules. Whether the relevant date for effect of the Notification placing the time limit is the date of invoice or the date on which credit has been taken? - Held that:- The date of the invoice has to be after 01.09.2014 for limitation of six months to apply - In this case since invoices in question were issued prior to 01.09.2014, credit is admissible on this ground alone. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/30750/2018-SM - A/31560/2018 - Dated:- 12-12-2018 - Mr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Mr Guna Ranjan, A.R for the Appellant. Ms Swetha Giridar, Adv for the Respondent. ORDER Per: P. VENK ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 1st Appellate Authority held that the relevant date for deciding whether limitation would apply is the date of invoice and not the date on which they have taken credit. (ii) The 1st Appellate Authority held that the appellant has, in fact, taken credit in their private records including project ledgers service tax receivable accounts, excise duty payable accounts etc. within six months from the date of invoice but had only failed to reflect these in the ER-1 returns for the corresponding periods. (iii) Substantive benefit of CENVAT credit cannot be denied for a procedural lapse of not reflecting the amount of credit taken in their ER 1 returns. 3. The present appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the 1st Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore the amendment requiring the credit to be taken within six months does not apply to this invoice as was held by the Tribunal in the following cases: 1) Suryadev Alloys Power Pvt Ltd Vs CCE [2018(11)TMI 1019 (CESTAT-Chennai) 2) Indian Potash Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central GST, Meerut [2018(10)TMI 1367-CESTAT Allahabad] 3) Voss Exotech Automotive Pvt Ltd Vs CCE Pune [2018(3)TMI 1048-CESTAT Mumbai] 4) Hariprabha Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs CGST, Kolhapur [2018(9)TMI 19-CESTAT Mumbai] (ii) There was no statutory requirement of maintaining records in any particular form and they had, in fact, taken credit in their private records and reflected the same in their ER-1 partly and such belated reflection in the ER-I does not amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of credit and reflecting the same in ER-1 registers. The department s case is that the private records do not matter. What is required is that that the appellant has to take credit within six months and the fact that they have taken credit within six months only gets reflected in their ER-1 returns. Otherwise, the department has no way of knowing whether they have taken credit within six months. I find strong force in the argument of the revenue on this aspect that credit has to be taken within a period of six months and the fact that they have taken credit has to be reflected in their ER-1 returns. Otherwise, the entire rule has no meaning and the department has no means of verifying whether the credit was taken as per the Rules. On the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
