2019 (7) TMI 1084

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Member (Technical) Shri Gopal Mundhra, Advocate for the appellant Shri P. Juneja, Authorized Representative for the respondent ORDER Per Archana Wadhwa: 1. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical. The appellants are availing the benefit of Cenvat Credit of duty paid on the inputs as also of service tax paid on the Input Services. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....provided in Rule 4 (7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules would not apply to them. 3. However, the said plea of the appellant was not accepted by Original Adjudicating Authority, who denied the credit and confirmed the demands along with interest and imposition of penalty. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the orders and hence the present two appeals. 4. We find from the impugned order of Com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ions referred to and relied upon by the appellant which clearly covers the issue in their favour. This attitude of Commissioner (Appeals) reflects on his pre-determined mind to reject the appeals in a mechanical manner, thus putting the litigant into difficulty, apart from the increasing the burden and pendency of litigation at the higher level. 5. Having expressed our anguish, we note that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was clearly held that the six month limitation provided with effect from 01/09/2014 would not apply to the cenvatable invoices issued prior to said date. The other decisions relied upon by the Ld. Advocate are also to the same effect but multiplying the precedent decisions would not make a difference as it is a settled law. Further, not only various Tribunals' decisions but Hon'ble Delhi High Cour....