2018 (9) TMI 19

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tax, Pune. 2. Factual backdrop of the case is that appellant company was availing cenvat credit of capital goods and input services as well as using those towards central excise duty on finished excisable goods. There was no restriction for such adjustment of credit prior to 01.09.2014. By insertion of 6th proviso in the Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 w.e.f. 01.09.2014 taking of cenvat credit after 6 months of date of issue of any documents specified in sub- Rule (1) of Rule 9 was disallowed. Appellant on the end of that month i.e. on 30.09.2014 took credit of the above referred amount against the bills raised between 2010 and August 2013. On scrutiny of ER returns for the month of September 2014, the assessing officer pointed out the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n for which lenient consideration should be given to the cause of the appellant while disposing of the appeal. 4. In response to the appellant contention, ld. AR for the department Shri Sanjay Hasija submitted that the amended proviso was brought into Rule on 11.07.2014 and the effective date for application of this proviso stipulating 6 months period was 01.09.2014. A breathing period of one month and two weeks was given in respect of adjustment of utilisation of previous documents like invoice for availment of cenvat credit which the appellant did not prefer use and therefore, no further benefit can be extended to him that would be violative of statutory restriction. He cites two decisions namely 2014 (309) ELT 359 and 2004 (167) ELT 201....