Prospective extension of Cenvat credit time limit did not save credit taken after the original six-month bar.

Cenvat credit taken after the six-month period then prescribed under Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was held inadmissible because the later amendment extending the time limit to one year was prospective only. Credit availed on 28.02.2015, after expiry of the original six-month limit and before the amendment took effect, could not be regularised. The document also notes that because the restriction was clear and unambiguous, taking credit beyond that period constituted misdeclaration, suppression and fraud, so the extended period of limitation was available. The demand for inadmissible Cenvat credit was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Cenvat credit availed after six months from the date of issue of the document, but before the amendment extending the period to one year, was admissible; (ii) whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was justified.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit availed after six months from the date of issue of the document, but before the amendment extending the period to one year, was admissible.

Analysis: The relevant proviso to Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 then restricted availment of credit after six months from the date of issue of the prescribed documents. The subsequent amendment by Notification No. 06/2015-C.E. (N.T.) dated 01.03.2015 substituted the period of six months with one year. The amendment was held to be prospective. Credit availed on 28.02.2015, after the expiry of the six-month period and before the amendment took effect, could not be treated as admissible. Reliance placed on decisions involving materially different facts did not assist the appellant.

Conclusion: The credit was not admissible to the appellant, and the finding was against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was justified.

Analysis: Since the proviso clearly barred availment of credit after six months and the law was held to be unambiguous, taking credit beyond that period amounted to misdeclaration, suppression and fraud. On that basis, the conditions for invocation of the extended period were satisfied.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was rightly invoked, and the finding was against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The demand of inadmissible Cenvat credit was sustained and the appeal failed in entirety.

---