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

....e 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. Ltd. * 2011 (268) ELT 296 (SC) Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. vs U....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment 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. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CENTRAL TAX GOODS AND SERVICE TAX. held that the limitation of 6 months provided as per notification no 21/2014-CE(N.T.) is not applicable in cases where ....