2021 (4) TMI 804

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i Dharmendra Kanjani, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The issue involved is that whether the revenue is correct in denying the cenvat credit on the ground that the appellant have availed the credit the after a period of 6 months from the date of issue of cenvatable invoices invoking the proviso which was inserted in Rule 4(1) & 4(7) vide notification No. 21/2014-CE(N.T.) dated 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hmd) • GOVERNMENT OF INDIA v/S. INDIAN TOBACCO ASSOCIATION- 2005 (187) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.) 3. On the other hand Shri. Dharmendra Kanjani, Learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) appearing for the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He also placed reliance on the following judgments:- • A/11369/19 Dtd. 12.07.2019- BHARAT RESINS LTD. Vs. CCE, S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t applicable in cases where the invoices were issued before the notification came into effect i.e. 01.09.2014. the Delhi bench in said case has relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of GLOBAL CERAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.-2019-TIOL-1129-HC-DEL-CUS. The relevant para of said judgment of BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD. (Supra) is reproduced below. 5. Having expressed ou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s 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 Court ....