Dear Sir,
Thank you for your response.
I have gone through the decisions referred by you and am discussing brief facts hereunder.
VINAYAK STEELS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD-III [2016 (2) TMI 1030 - CESTAT HYDERABAD]-Assessee debited ITC from ledger on deptt view that same was not allowable. Later demand for same was also raised. Thus, assessee recredited earlier reversal. CESTAT allowed recredit relying on earlier decisions holding that duty could not be recovered twice.
TOTAL ENVIRONMENT WOODWORK P. LTD. VERSUS C.C.E.,C. & S.T., BANGALORE-I [2017 (1) TMI 1534 - CESTAT BANGALORE]-Assessee initially duty by way of adjustment of ITC but since such adjustment was bad in law, it deposited duty again in cash on demand post audit. CESTAT allowed refund of doubly-paid duty holding that duty cannot be recovered twice.
DABUR INDIA LTD. VERSUS C.C.E., GHAZIABAD [2016 (12) TMI 1177 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD].-In this case, assessee paid duty under protest and later recredited same in credit ledger upon success of appeal. CESTAT ruled that assessee was within its rights to do so.
M/S KRISHNAV ENGINEERING LTD. VERSUS CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER [2015 (12) TMI 234 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]- Assessee debited and then again recredited the input and separately intimated the same to department. HC ruled that recredit was only a case of modification of a ledger and no actual funds passed from department to assessee, therefore same was allowable.
COMMR. OF C.E.,C. & S.T., BANGALORE VERSUS STUMPP, SCHEULE & SOMAPPA P. LTD. [2015 (9) TMI 1375 - CESTAT BANGALORE]-Assessee initially reversed credit on recommendation of department but again reclaimed upon disagreeing with deptt view.
Therefore, in all such cases either ITC was reversed on insistence of deptt or question of law before CESTAT whether recredit was allowed under law or assessee filed refund claim which was held to be time barred and CESTAT ruled in assessee's favour.
The question of time barring of ITC claim under third proviso to Rule 4(1) of CCR Rules was not discussed. which was similar to section 16(4) of CGST Act imposing limit until September of next year for claiming ITC (1 year under CCR Rules). In our case, assessee claimed ITC initially by time in Sep 2019 return and reversed in October 2019 return and then again reclaimed in Feb 2020 without any direction from department but solely on advice of counsel. Would the ITC reclaim in Feb 2020 done solely suo motu, not be time barred?