Tribunal protects appellant's credit rights, deeming amendment prospective. Upholds vested rights principle.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the amendment restricting cenvat credit had prospective effect only. The appellant's right to avail credit on invoices received before the effective date of the amendment was deemed vested and protected. The judgment emphasized the principle that existing rights cannot be curtailed by subsequent amendments unless expressly provided. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential benefits to the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
- Whether the appellant's taking of cenvat credit on invoices received during specific periods is hit by the amendment in Rule 4 (7) by insertion of the 6th Proviso.
- Whether the provision of the amendment should be applied retrospectively.
- Whether the CENVAT credit taken by the appellant during a certain period is admissible.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer, availed cenvat credit on invoices received between August 2013 to January 2014 and January 2015. The amendment in Rule 4 (7) inserted a proviso restricting credit after six months of the date of issue of specified documents. The appellant received inputs against 57 documents during the mentioned period but made credit entries later due to a clerical oversight.

2. The department raised concerns regarding the inadmissibility of the credit taken post-amendment. The appellant contested the Show Cause Notice (SCN) on merits and limitation, disputing the applicability of the amendment. The original authority confirmed the recovery of disputed credit along with penalties.

3. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (A), who upheld the applicability of the amendment retrospectively. The appellant then approached the Tribunal, arguing against the retrospective application of the amendment and asserting vested rights in availing cenvat credit.

4. The Tribunal considered similar precedents where amendments were held to have prospective effect only. Referring to a specific case, the Tribunal emphasized that a statutory right vested before an amendment cannot be divested unless expressly provided. The Tribunal concluded that the amendment in this case would have prospective effect only.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential benefits to the appellant. The Tribunal held that the appellant's cenvat credit was in order and not affected by the retrospective application of the amendment.

In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the amendment restricting cenvat credit had prospective effect only. The appellant's right to avail credit on invoices received before the effective date of the amendment was deemed vested and protected. The judgment emphasized the principle that existing rights cannot be curtailed by subsequent amendments unless expressly provided.

---