Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Notification No. 16/2009 dated 07 July, 2009, amending Explanation 2 to Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, operated retrospectively so as to deny Cenvat credit for the period prior to its publication.
Analysis: The disputed goods were used in the manufacture process during May 2007 to June 2009, i.e. before the notification came into force. The amendment inserted by Notification No. 16/2009 expressly stated that the amended rules would come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. On that basis, the amendment was treated as effective only from 07 July, 2009. The reasoning further accepted that the notification was not merely clarificatory and that a departmental circular could not override the statute or give retrospective effect to the amendment. The conclusion was reinforced by the view that the High Court decisions holding the amendment to be prospective were binding.
Conclusion: The notification was held to be prospective only and not applicable to the prior period. The denial of Cenvat credit on that basis was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The credit restriction introduced by the 2009 amendment could not be applied to periods preceding its publication, so the assessee's credit entitlement for the disputed period remained unaffected.
Ratio Decidendi: An amendment to Cenvat Credit Rules that expressly comes into force on the date of its publication operates prospectively and cannot be applied retrospectively to deny credit for an earlier period unless the statute clearly indicates such retrospective operation.