Cenvat credit timing and Rule 57G amendment: delayed Part II entry did not defeat input credit on these facts.

Credit of duty on inputs could not be denied merely because it was taken in RG 23A Part II after six months, where the inputs had been received and entered in RG 23A Part I within time before the amendment to Rule 57G. The amended proviso barring credit after six months was treated as prospective and not as defeating credits already substantively earned on the facts present. On that basis, delayed posting in Part II, without dispute as to receipt or timely Part I recording, did not destroy the credit entitlement, and the demand confirmed under Section 11A could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether credit of duty on inputs could be denied merely because it was taken in RG 23A Part II after six months, when the inputs had been received and recorded in RG 23A Part I before the amendment to Rule 57G.

Analysis: The appellant had received the inputs during the relevant period and had entered them in RG 23A Part I within the stipulated time. The dispute arose only because the credit was actually taken in RG 23A Part II after six months. The amended proviso to Rule 57G barred taking credit after six months from the date of issue of the prescribed documents, and the earlier decision relied upon held that the proviso operated prospectively and did not invalidate credits already taken before its commencement. Following that reasoning, the relevant question was whether delay in entry in Part II, without dispute as to receipt and Part I recording, could by itself defeat the substantive credit.

Conclusion: The denial of credit was unsustainable. The amendment to Rule 57G did not apply so as to defeat the appellant's claim in the present facts, and the demand confirmed under Section 11A could not stand.

---