2019 (4) TMI 473

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f.01/09/2014 vide Notification No. 21/2014- CENT dated 11th July, 2014 which provides- (ii) after the fifth proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted with effect from first day of September, 2014, namely: - "Provided also that the manufacturer or the provider of output service shall not take CENVAT credit after six months of the date of issue of any of the documents specified in sub-rule (1) of rule 9" 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of dutiable goods such as sponge iron, ferro alloys etc. and these goods are cleared on payment of duty. The appellant also avails credit of duty paid on inputs, input services and capital goods under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. The appellant during the perio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jected the appeal on the finding that the provision of NN dated 11/07/2014 shall be applicable with retrospective effect to the CENVAT Credit taken in the books during November 2014 to January 2015. Hence the present appeal. 7. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel states that the Courts below have urged in applying the amendment brought by the Proviso in Rule 4 (7) of CCR w.e.f.1St September, 2014 retrospectively. The Ld. Counsel states that vested right and the rights crystallized with the appellant, as regards availing of CENVAT credit, cannot be modified or verified by subsequent amendment, unless specifically provided in the statute. As there is no such specific provision in the amendment brought w.e.f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ight. I find that the similar issue arose before the Division Bench of this Tribunal in National Steel Industries Ltd. v/s CCE 2000 (126) ELT 709 (Tribunal) wherein vide a Notification No. 28/95-CENT dated 29/06/1995 in Rule 57G (2) of the 1944 Rules, a proviso was inserted to the effect that a manufacturer shall not take credit after 6 months of the date of issue of any of the documents specified in the First Proviso to this Sub-Rule. In this regard the Division Bench of this Tribunal held as follows: - "12. Next question arises for our consideration is whether amendment is retrospective. Tribunal in the case of Telco has categorically held that the amendment has no retrospective effect and cannot apply to situations which crystalised bef....