TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1005
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RY (CEX) dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirappalli, whereby Order-in-Original No. 02/2017-CX dated 07.04.2017 was upheld. 1.2 The Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of printing and writing paper falling under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and is registered with the Central Excise Department. The Appellant was availing CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 1.3 During the audit of accounts it was noticed that the Appellant had availed CENVAT credit amounting to Rs.42,76,051/- during January and February 2015 on the basis of four invoices/bills of entry, which were issued prior to 01.09.2014 and beyond six mont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereon, and such vested right cannot be taken away by a subsequent procedural amendment. iii. It was further argued that the proviso to Rule 4(7) was amended again vide Notification No. 6/2015-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2015 extending the time limit from six months to one year, and the credit in question was availed within one year from the date of invoices. Hence, even on that count, the credit was admissible. iv. The issue is no longer res integra and stands settled by the following decisions: - a. Nouveau Medicament (P) Ltd. v. CCE, 2018 (10) TMI 694 - CESTAT Chennai b. Autotech Industries (I) Pvt. Ltd., 2024 (9) TMI 110 - CESTAT Chennai c. Marico Ltd., 2024 (8) TMI 1204 - CESTAT Mumbai d. Bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d undisputed fact on record that all the four invoices/bills of entry, on the basis of which the impugned CENVAT credit of Rs.42,76,051/- was availed, were issued prior to 01.09.2014, which is the effective date of insertion of the proviso to Rule 4(7) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by Notification No. 21/2014-CE (NT) dated 11.07.2014. 8.2 It is equally undisputed that, prior to this amendment, the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 did not prescribe any time limit whatsoever for availment of credit on inputs or input services. 8.3 The legal position is well settled that the right to avail CENVAT credit is a substantive right under the CENVAT scheme which accrues to the assessee when the inputs/input services are received and duty or service....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly held that Notification No. 21/2014-CE (NT) cannot be applied to invoices issued prior to its effective date, as such application would amount to impermissible retrospective curtailment of an accrued right. 8.6 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Global Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (26) G.S.T.L. 470 (Del.) has authoritatively held that in view of Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, amendments to rules or notifications cannot affect accrued or vested rights unless a contrary intention is expressly provided. In the absence of such express intention, a procedural amendment imposing a time limit cannot be applied retrospectively to deny credit on documents issued prior to the amendment. 8.7 The Revenue's reliance on decisions upholding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Therefore, even assuming without admitting that the limitation provision introduced in 2014 was applicable, the availment of credit would still fall within the enlarged time limit prescribed under the amended proviso effective from 01.03.2015. 9.3 The question that arises is whether the benefit of the extended period of one year can be denied on the ground that the earlier six-month period had expired prior to 01.03.2015. It is well settled that a procedural amendment enlarging a period of limitation applies to all subsisting claims, so long as the right itself has not been extinguished by a substantive statutory bar as on the date of such amendment. 9.4 We find that The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mysore Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the object of the CENVAT scheme rather than defeats it on technicalities. 9.7 The Revenue's reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Uttam Steel Ltd. is misplaced. That judgment dealt with revival of a claim that had already become time-barred under the unamended statute. In the present case, the credit had not become irreversibly barred by any substantive provision, particularly since the invoices themselves were issued when no limitation existed. Hence, the ratio of Uttam Steel is clearly distinguishable on facts and law. 9.8 In view of the above discussion, we hold that the amendment to Rule 4(7) vide Notification No. 6/2015-CE (NT) extending the time limit to one year ensures to the benefit of the....