TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... envat Credit can be taken being a vested right. The said Proviso inserted by N/N. 21/2014 will have prospective effect only. Thus, CENVAT CREDIT taken by the appellant is held to be in order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/52474/2018-SMC - FINAL ORDER NO. 50313/2019 - Dated:- 21-2-2019 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Ms Pooja Agarwal, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K Poddar, DR for the Respondent ORDER Per Anil Choudhary: 1. The issue in this appeal is whether the taking of cenvat credit by the appellant, a manufacturer, on invoices received along with the goods during the period August, 2013, January, 2014 to July, 2014 and credit taken during November, 2014 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (NT) dated 11/07/2014; the said Notification provided that w.e.f. 01/09/2014 No Cenvat Credit shall be taken after 6 months of issue of invoices; The fact of receipt of inputs and input service and utilization thereof in the manufacture of final goods cleared on payment of duty was not disputed. 5. The appellant contested the SCN dated 03/01/2017 both on merits and limitation; mainly disputing the applicability of NN dated 11/07/2014. The original adjudicating authority however brushed aside all the submissions of the appellant and confirmed the recovery of disputed CENVAT credit along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty u/r 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules r/w 11 AC (1) (c) of the Act. 6. The appellant filed appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd further states that the amending notification dated 11th July, 2014, gave a window to the assessees to take the cenvat credit as the said proviso which was inserted, although on 11th July 2014 by N/N 21/2014, was made effective w.e.f. 1st September, 2014. As the appellant failed to avail the credit within the window the credit is rightly denied. 9. Having considered the rival contentions I find that similar issue arose before this Tribunal, in the coordinate Bench decision in the case of M/s VOSS EXOTECH AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD. V/s CCE, PUNE-I reported at 2018 (3) TMI 1048-CESTAT MUMBAI wherein it had been held that the said provision amendment has got only prospective effect and no retrospective effect can be given, and accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expressly provides for the same. A statute which affects rights in existence is not readily construed to affect adjudication of pending proceedings. In the words of Shri Das C.J. The golden rule of construction is that, in the absence of anything in the enactment to know that it is to have retrospective operation, it cannot be so construed as to have the effect of altering the law applicable to a claim in litigation at the time when the Act was passed - See Gangapati v. N. Subhash Choudhary - AIR 1957 SC 540 P 553. In the instant case the amendment which comes into force from 29-6-1995 does not express such situation applying the provisions retrospectively. A right to take Modvat credit which was accrued to the assessee prior to amendment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
