TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-I [ 2018 (3) TMI 1048 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where it was held that Notification No. 21/2014-S.T. (N.T.), dated 11- 7-2014 should be applicable to those cases wherein the invoices were issued on or after 11-7-2014 for the reason that notification was not applicable to the invoices issued prior to the date of notification therefore at the time of issuance of the invoices no time limit was prescribed. Therefore in respect of those invoices the limitation of six months cannot be made applicable. Thus, the time limit of six months prescribed under Notification No.21/2014 dated 11.07.2014 is applicable only in respect of the invoices issued after 11.07.2014. As the invoices in this case were issued prior to this da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is no more res integra as various Tribunals have categorically held that six months time limit prescribed under Notification No.21/2014 dated 11.07.2014 would not be applicable for the invoices issued prior to 11.07.2014. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing their appeal. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the department reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. I find that there is no dispute regarding the payment of duty and receipt of the inputs by the appellant in their factory. The only issue to be decided here is whether the appellant is eligible to avail the Cenvat Credit in December 2014, on the basis of the invoices issued in the month of March and April 2013, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no statutory records prescribed the assessee s records were considered as account for Cenvat credit. Even though the credit was not entered in so-called RG-23A, Part-II, but it is recorded in the books of accounts, it will be considered as Cenvat credit was recorded. On this ground also it can be said that there is no delay in taking the credit. As per my above discussion, the appellant is entitled for the Cenvat credit hence the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed. 7. I find that this decision has been followed in various other decisions of the Tribunals, some of which are mentioned below:- (a) Indian Potash Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST, Meerut [2019 (369) E.L.T. 742 (Tri.-All.)] (b) Essel Propack ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
