TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant did not avail the CENVAT credit and kept the invoices pending and when the issue was finally settled by the Tribunal and thereafter the Additional Commissioner decided the SCN in favour of the appellant, then the appellant took the CENVAT credit - Further, the appellant had reasonable excuse for not taking the credit as there was a dispute regarding the input service. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The entire demand is also time barred because the SCN was issued on 28.06.2017 and the period of dispute is April 2013 to May 2014 and the appellant has been filing the Returns regularly therefore there is no reason to invoke the extended period of limitation in the present case. On merit as well as on limitation, the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of penalty. After following the due process, the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 06.04.2018 disallowed the CENVAT credit of ₹ 4,37,222/- and ordered for recovery along with interest and equal penalty under Rule 15 (2) of the CCR, 2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the same. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records of the case. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants 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 invoices in respect of which the CENVAT credit has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant availed the CENVAT credit in respect of said services even before the receipt of the order of the Additional Commissioner on the eligibility of the CENVAT credit on Service Tax paid on the commission paid to commission agents in the appellant s own case. He also submitted that the Additional Commissioner decided the SCN in favour of the appellant and allowed the CENVAT credit in respect of Commission Agent Service received by the appellant during the period May 2009 to March 2014 vide OIO dated 27.07.2015. Learned Counsel submitted that on account of these facts, the appellant was prevented by a reasonable cause from availing the CENVAT credit for the period subsequent to the date of issue of SCN and the CENVAT credit legitimately e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit. He further submitted that benefit under the CCR cannot be denied for procedural or technical infraction. He also submitted that the date of invoice against which the appellant has availed the CENVAT credit are dated prior to 01.09.2014 when there was no time limit prescribed for availing the CENVAT credit in the CCR, 2004. The limitation of six months or one year was subsequently added by different notification and both the Notifications have only got prospective effect and do not have retrospective effect to bring within its ambit the transactions that had occurred prior to 01.09.2014/01.03.2015. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CCE, Chennai-I Vs CEGAT, Chennai reported in 2001 (133) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued to the appellant and therefore, the appellant did not avail the CENVAT credit and kept the invoices pending and when the issue was finally settled by the Tribunal and thereafter the Additional Commissioner decided the SCN in favour of the appellant, then the appellant took the CENVAT credit. Further, I find that the appellant had reasonable excuse for not taking the credit as there was a dispute regarding the input service. Further, I note that the appellant took the CENVAT credit on 05.06.2014 for the invoices pertaining to April 2013 to May 2014. Further, I note that the amendment brought in Rule 4 vide Notification No.21/2014 dated 11.07.2014 and Notification no.06/2015 dated 01.03.2015 prescribed the limitation of time of six mon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
