TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 4
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct from 01.06.2015 and have availed Cenvat Credit of Rs. 34,72,54,650/- paid on inputs in stock, work in progress and finished goods. A Show Cause Notice was issued and was followed by an Order-in-Original No. 7/2021 dated 27.02.2021, holding that the credit, availed by the appellants, is not admissible to them in terms of proviso to Rule 4 (1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules,2004 (CCR,2004 in short), as the credit can be availed only within one year from the date of invoice. Hence, this appeal. 2.1 Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as per Rule 4 (1) of CCR, 2004, credit can be availed on receipt of inputs; it has been clarified by CBEC vide F. No. 345/2/2000TRU dated 29.08,2000, in respect of the earlier provisions of Rule 57 AC t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel further submits that wherever the legislature intended to cast the time limit in allowing transitional credit, it is then specifically. He submits that Section 140 (3) of the CGST Act, which allows availment of transitional credit in respect of the erstwhile duties paid on inputs lying in stock, contained in work in progress and in finished goods, which was not entitled under the legacy laws, but entitled under GST law allows such credit only in respect of the purchases made prior to one year from 01.07.2017. He submits that Rule 3 (2) of CCR, 2004, did not prescribe any time limit. The time limit prescribed by way of proviso under Rule 4 (1) would apply to only in cases where the credit has to be availed in regular course; in the inst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 1 Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs. CTO AIR 1966 SC 12 2 Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills and Ginning Factory Vs. Subhash Chandra Yograj Sinha AIR 1961 SC 1596 3 Dwaraka Prasad Vs. Dwarka Das Saraf AIR 1975 SC 1758 4 Ram Naraibn Sons Ltd, Vs. ACST AIR 1955 SC 765 5 Abdul Jabbar Butt Vs. State of J & K AIR 1957 SC 281 6 Voss Exotech Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2018 (363) ELT 1141 Tri-Mum. 7 Industrial Filters & Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CGST & CE, Indore 2019 (1) TMI 1426 Cestat-New Delhi 8 Umesh Engineering Works Vs. CCT, Bengaluru West 2019 (1) TMI 1158 Cestat-Bangalore 9 Suryadev Alloys and Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2018 (11) TMI 1019 Cestat-Chennai 10 Indian Potash Ltd. Vs. CGST....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or ease of reference we would like to reproduce the relevant provisions of law:- "Rule 4. Conditions for allowing Cenvat Credit. ................................................................................................... ................................................................................................... Provided also that the manufacturer or the provider of output service shall not take Cenvat credit after [one year] of the date of issue of any of the documents specified in sub-rule (1) of Rule 9." "Rule 3. CENVAT CREDIT ................................................................................................... ....................................................................... (2) Not wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts applicability. As such, the function of a proviso is to qualify something or to exclude, something from what is provided in the enactment which, but for proviso, would be within the purview of enactment. A proviso may entirely change the very concept of the intendment of the enactment by insisting on certain mandatory conditions to be fulfilled in order to make the enactment workable and thus acquire the tenor and colour of the substantive enactment itself." Therefore, we are of the concerned opinion that even the transitional credit will be subjected to the provisions of Rule 4 (1) of CCR, 2004. As the position of law is crystal clear, reference to the cases cited by the appellant would be of no avail. 5.3. Coming to the issue of limi....