2021 (12) TMI 580

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... taken after one year from the date of issue of invoices but in all the cases the date of issue of invoices are prior to the amendment Notification of Rule 4(1) according to which the appellant are supposed to take cenvat credit within six months / one year from the date of issue of invoices. He submits that since the invoices in question were issue prior to the insertion of stipulated time period of six months / one year, this amendment fixing the time limit shall not apply, accordingly, the cenvat credit cannot be denied. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the following judgements: • 2007 (208) ELT 19 (Tri. LB) - MRP Ltd. vs CCE, Mangalore • 2009 (246) ELT 364 (Tri.- Ahmd.) Banner Pharma Caps Pvt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s not prescribed, therefore, in respect of those invoices, the subsequent amendment stipulating the time limit for availing the credit shall not apply. The relevant judgement is cited below: • Vijay Kumar Srivastaw vs CCE & ST Daman (Final Order No. 11657-11658/2021) "4. I have heard both the sides and perused the records. I find that the major issue to be decided is that the cenvat credit was availed after 01.09.2014, in respect of invoices issue prior to 01.09.2014. In the light of the amendment notification no 21/2014-CE(N.T.) whether the claim of cenvat credit is time barred. I find that though there are various decision on the issue however, the Division Bench in the case of BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD. V/S. JOIN....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o 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 also in case of Global Ceramics Private Limited and Ors. vs. The Principal Commissioner of Central Excise and Ors. W.P. (C) 6706/2016 and W.P. (C) 9152/2016 has also observed to the same effect in paragraph 11.4 of their decisions. 6. As such, we find that the issue is no more res Integra and stands settled in favour of the assessee. However, the fact that the invoices in question were prior to 01/09/2014 is required to be verified. The Original Adjudicating Authority is dire....