TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a Government of India Undertaking having integrated steel plants at different places in the country. One such steel plant of the appellant, Durgapur Steel Plant ("DSP" in short) is situated in Durgapur in the district of Burdwan in the State of West Bengal. The present appeal relates to the said Durgapur Steel Plant of the appellant. 2.1. DSP manufactures various iron & steel and other byproducts falling under various Chapter Headings of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 including Chapters 72, 73, 84, 86, 27, 28 and 29. DSP is duly registered under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to carrying out manufacturing activity in the said steel plant. The appellant, avails of cenvat credit facility on inputs, capital goods and input services which are received in its factory and used for the manufacture of dutiable final products therein. The number of invoices relating to inputs and input services received by the appellant being huge in a particular year there is a time lag between the date of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct input materials and input services, which were received prior to SEPTEMBER 01, 2014, as is evident from the date of the Invoices. 3.1. In support of their contentions, the Appellant relied on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. 2024 (1) TMI 634 - Cestat Kolkata M/s. Bihar Sponge Iron Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST & CX, Jamshedpur Commissionerate. 2. 2026 (2) TMI 1005 - CESTAT CHENNAI M/s. Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli 3. (2026) 39 Centax 187 (Tri.-Bom) Amba River Coke Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Raigad 4. 2022 (3) TMI 358 - CESTAT Bangalore Roquette Riddhi Siddhi Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Belgaum 5. 2019 (5) TMI 1432 - Delhi High Court Global Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., M/s. B.R. Ceramics (P) Ltd. Versus The Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi -1 6. (2025) 29 Centax 237 (Tri. Cal) Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Versus Supratik Infra Venture Pvt. Ltd. 7. 2025 (3) TMI 188 - CESTAT Bangalore M/s. Bostik India Private Limited Versus P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I find that there is no dispute regarding the payment of duty and receipt of the inputs by the appellant in their factory. The only issue to be decided here is whether the appellant is eligible to avail the Cenvat Credit in December 2014, on the basis of the invoices issued in the month of March and April 2013, which is beyond a period of six months prescribed under Notification No.21/2014 dated 11.07.2014. 6. I find that the issue id no longer res integra, as the same issue has already been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Voss Exotech Automotive Pvt.Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Pune-I [2018 (363) E.L.T. 1141 (Tri.- Mumbai)]. The relevant paragraph of the said decision is reproduced below:- "4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, I find that for denial of the credit, the Notification No. 21/2014C.E. (N.T.), dated 11-7-2014 was invoked wherein six months period is available for taking credit. As per the facts of the case credit was taken in respect of the invoices issued in the month of March & April 2014 in November 2014. On going through the Notification No. 6/2015-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2015 the period available for taki....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). The relevant observations therein are reproduced below for ease of reference: - "Applicability of six-month limitation to pre01.09.2014 invoices 8.1 It is an admitted and 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 tax thereon is paid, subject only to fulfillment of the conditions prescribed under the statute. Once such a right accrues, it cannot be taken away or curtailed by a subsequent procedural amendment unless the amending provision is expressly retros....