2019 (9) TMI 1587 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant's Appeal Dismissed Due to Procedural Lapses and Time Limit Exceeded

M/s. Rangoli Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Customs, Goods and Service Tax, Jodhpur

The appellant's lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal, the disallowance of cenvat credit for exceeding the prescribed time limit, and the ... CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - case of Revenue is that the impugned availment of cenvat credit the Notification introducing third proviso of Rule 4 (1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was not in existence - HELD THAT:- The period of six months with respect to both the impugned Bills of Entry expires before the incorporation of proviso 3 in Rule 4 (1) of CCR, Rules, which waives the limitation of six months from the date of Bill of Entry. It is apparent from the Notification dated 1st September, 2014 that there is no stipulation in the amending Notification for same to be applicable retrospectively. Rules of interpretation provide that whenever any statute is newly added, the same has prospective effect only, unless and until it is specifically provided in the amending statute or the amendment is by way of substitution of an existing provision, mainly by way of clarification or removal of defects. The same is not true for the impugned notification. Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 otherwise mandates the period of six months from the date of issue of relevant document for the purpose of raising respective claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) has committed no error in holding that Cenvat Credit has been availed beyond six months of the impugned Bills of Entry - appeal dismissed. Issues:1. Appellant's lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal.2. Availment of cenvat credit beyond the prescribed time limit.3. Interpretation of the Notification dated 1st September, 2014 regarding retrospective application.Analysis:Issue 1: Appellant's lack of diligenceThe judgment highlights the appellant's lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal. Despite multiple opportunities, the appellant failed to actively participate in the proceedings. The absence of the appellant during crucial stages, coupled with delays and non-appearance even when represented by a Chartered Accountant, led the Member (Judicial) to conclude that the appellant was not genuinely interested in advancing their appeal but rather sought to prolong the proceedings. The Registry had received written submissions on behalf of the appellant, prompting the Member to proceed with adjudication based on those submissions and grant an opportunity of hearing to the Department.Issue 2: Availment of cenvat credit beyond the prescribed time limitThe appellant, engaged in the manufacture of marble slabs, availed cenvat credit under Rule 3(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 upon crossing the threshold limit. However, the availment of cenvat credit on imported marble slabs was disallowed as it exceeded the prescribed time limit of six months from the date of issue of relevant documents, as per the then-existing Rule 4(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appeal against the disallowance was rejected, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that the appellant's reliance on a previous order was not applicable to the present case, as the time limit had expired before the introduction of the relevant proviso. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of cenvat credit beyond the stipulated time limit, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).Issue 3: Interpretation of the Notification dated 1st September, 2014The Tribunal analyzed the Notification dated 1st September, 2014, and emphasized that there was no provision for retrospective application. The judgment highlighted that statutes are presumed to have prospective effect unless explicitly stated otherwise or in cases of substitution for clarification. As the impugned notification did not indicate retrospective application, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision that the cenvat credit was indeed availed beyond the permissible time frame. The judgment concluded that the order had no infirmity, ultimately dismissing the appeal.In conclusion, the judgment addresses the appellant's lack of diligence, the disallowance of cenvat credit for exceeding the prescribed time limit, and the interpretation of the Notification dated 1st September, 2014, ultimately upholding the decision to dismiss the appeal based on the findings presented during the proceedings.