2019 (9) TMI 701

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rules restricted availment of credit by virtue of the following proviso: "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." 2.1 Ld. Counsel pointed out that immediately thereafter on 01/03/2015 the said proviso was amended and the word 'six months' was replaced by 'one year'. Ld. Counsel argued that however credit was taken after six months after payment of duty, it was taken within one year within payment of duty. He argued that credit should not be denied in these circumstances. 2.2 As an alternate argument, Ld. Counsel pleaded that once the credit has been utilized, demand und....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate that availment of Cenvat credit is conditional upon the satisfaction of all the provisos. Thus, there is a period stipulated for availment of this Cenvat credit. In addition thereto, there are conditions imposed for the availment. 56. To our mind, therefore, the learned Additional Solicitor General is right in his contention that a Cenvat credit is a mere concession and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. If the Cenvat Credit Rules under the existing legislation themselves stipulate and provide for conditions for availment of that credit, then, that credit on inputs under the existing law itself is not a absolute but a restricted or conditional right. It is subject to fulfilment or satisfaction of certain requirements an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....edit was availed on 28.02.2015. Ld. Counsel argued that demand cannot be confirmed if credit is already utilized. For this purpose, he relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sejasmi Industries India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). It is seen that in the said case, the credit was sought to be denied on the ground that proper records were not maintained and credit was availed on finished goods in contravention of provisions of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules. Reliance has been placed on the decision of M/s Hi-Tech Blow Moulders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Bangalore 2016 (341) ELT 419 (Tri- Bangalore). In the case of M/s Hi-Tech Blow Moulders, the facts were that certain goods which were not in the factory and on which credit was availed....