9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 858X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequently filed the refund claim in their jurisdiction which was rejected on the ground of time bar. The rejection order was challenged by the appellant before the Commissioner(Appeals) which was upheld. Thereafter, they filed appeal before the Tribunal in Appeal No. ST/11997-12001/2017, meanwhile the appellant have availed the Cenvat Credit on the input service for which the refund claim was filed. The show cause notice was issued on 29 November, 2018 proposing denial of Cenvat Credit on the ground that the appellant have taken the Cenvat Credit suo-moto as they have also filed the refund claim. The Adjudicating Authority has disallowed the Cenvat Credit. Against the order in original dated 23 May, 2019, the appellant filed an appeal befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per various judgments. He placed reliance on the following judgments: * STI INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMR OF C.E, DAMAN-2014 (302) E.L.T.433 (Tri. Ahmd.) * MALLAK SPECIALITIES PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMR. OF C.E., RAIGADH-2018 (2) TMI 539-CESTAT, MUMBAI * COMMISSIONER Vs. RELIANCE PORTS AND TERMINALS LTD.-2016 (334) E.L.T. 630 (Guj.) * COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., NAGPUR Vs. BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD.- 2007 (215) E.L.T. 489 (S.C) * M/S MYLAN LABORATORIES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX-VISAKHAPATNAM-GST-2019 (5) TMI 1427- CESTAT HYDERABAD * VIJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAW AND ALOK MASTERVBATCHES LTD Vs. C.C.E & S.T. -DAMAN- 2021 (4) TMI 804- CESTAT AHMEDABAD * GLOBAL CERAMICS PVT. LTD., M/S. B.R. CERAMICS(P) LTD. Vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not made in the show cause notice. Therefore, the appellant cannot be expected to make any presentation on the issue which was not raised in the show cause notice. Secondly, it is admitted fact that the appellant have taken the Cenvat Credit of ISD invoice and in case of ISD invoice no time limit has been prescribed. It is a settled law that if the invoice is of dated prior to amendment inserting the 1 year time limit, in such case the limitation on 1 year shall not apply, for this reason also the ground of the Lower Authority on limitation does not survive. Hence I do not find anything wrong in availment of Cenvat Credit by the appellant. 5. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed. (Dictated & Pronounced in the ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
