TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal allowed, order set aside, case remanded for fresh decision on CENVAT credit claim. Consider natural justice.</h1> <h3>M/s. Turbo Tech Precision Engineering Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Central Tax, Bangalore North West Commissionerate</h3> M/s. Turbo Tech Precision Engineering Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Central Tax, Bangalore North West Commissionerate - TMI Issues:1. Availment of CENVAT credit on inputs used in the manufacture of goods supplied to M/s. HAL, Bangalore.2. Applicability of time limitation for availing CENVAT credit.3. Rejection of CENVAT credit by the authorities.4. Legal sustainability of the impugned order.Analysis:Issue 1: Availment of CENVAT credit on inputsThe appellant manufactured goods supplied to M/s. HAL from June 2009 to January 2010. The appellant claimed CENVAT credit on inputs used in manufacturing these goods. The Tribunal earlier dismissed the appellant's plea for CENVAT credit due to lack of scrutiny of documents, not on merit. The appellant paid the duty and interest but sought CENVAT credit later. The Tribunal did not consider the request due to procedural reasons.Issue 2: Applicability of time limitationRule 4 of CENVAT Credit Rules was amended in 2014 and 2015 to introduce a time limit for availing CENVAT credit. However, the amendment cannot be applied retrospectively to the period in question (June 2009 to January 2010) as no time limitation existed then. The rejection of CENVAT credit based on the limitation is deemed legally unsustainable.Issue 3: Rejection of CENVAT creditThe impugned order rejected the appellant's claim for CENVAT credit based on the time limitation introduced post the relevant period. The appellant argued that their rights accrued during the period in question and the subsequent amendment should not be retroactively applied. The rejection was found to be legally flawed.Issue 4: Legal sustainability of the impugned orderThe impugned order was set aside as it failed to consider the absence of a time limitation during the relevant period for claiming CENVAT credit. The case was remanded to the Original Authority for a fresh decision based on the documents provided by the appellant, without considering the time limit prescribed in the amended Rule 4 of the CENVAT Credit Rules.In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the Original Authority for a fresh decision on the appellant's claim for CENVAT credit on inputs used in the manufacture of goods supplied to M/s. HAL, Bangalore. The decision should be made without considering the time limit introduced in the amended Rule 4, following the principles of natural justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
