TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made applicable retrospectively. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of M/s. Voss Exotech Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C.Ex. Pune-I, [2018 (3) TMI 1048 - CESTAT MUMBAI] wherein it has been held that restrictions on manufacturer to avail credit beyond the period of six months/one year did not apply to invoices issued prior to the dates of notification. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20883/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20045/2019 - Dated:- 11-1-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Pradyumna G.H. Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Gopa Kumar, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) in so far as demand of ₹ 26,94,868/- plus interest and penalty and the said appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (A). Hence, this appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that in the present appeal, the appellant is only challenging the denial of CENVAT credit of ₹ 26,94,868/- on the ground that the credit had been availed after the statutory period of one year from the date of input credit as per Rule 4(1) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that in the present case, the credit pertains to two Bills of Entry dated 28.05.2013 and 10.06.2013 but the credit was availed in December 2015. Further, I find that the limitation of one year for availing the CENVAT credit as per Rule 4 of CCR is not applicable in the present case because the invoices pertains to the period prior to the amendment and the amendment has not been made applicable retrospectively. Further, I find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of M/s. Voss Exotech (Supra) wherein the Hon ble Tribunal has held at Page 14 in Para 4 as under: On careful consideration of the submissions made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
