Cenvat credit limitation cannot be imported retrospectively where no time bar existed in the relevant period.

Cenvat credit for inputs relating to 2009-10 and 2010-11 was taken in July 2013, when no statutory time limit governed the point of availment. A later notification introducing a six-month or one-year limit operated prospectively and could not be applied to deny credit for a period when no limitation existed. The settled principle applied is that a limitation cannot be read into a scheme by implication where the earlier regime contained none. On that basis, denial of credit on limitation grounds was held unsustainable and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit pertaining to a period prior to the introduction of the time limit in Notification No. 21/2014-CE (N.T.) dated 11.07.2014 could be denied as time-barred when availed later.

Analysis: The credit related to invoices and receipt of inputs for the period 2009-10 and 2010-11, while the credit was taken in July 2013, a period when no statutory time limit prescribed the point of availing such credit. The later notification prescribing a time limit of six months or one year operated prospectively and could not be used to import a limitation into periods for which none existed. The settled legal position relied upon in the decision is that a court or authority cannot read into the scheme a period of limitation not expressly enacted, and credit validly earned cannot be denied merely on the ground of delay where the earlier regime contained no such bar.

Conclusion: The denial of credit on limitation was unsustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express statutory time limit in the relevant period, Cenvat credit validly earned cannot be disallowed by importing a limitation subsequently introduced by a prospective notification.

---