Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Voss Exotech Automotive Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune-I on 16 February, 2018
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No. E/87511/17 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PUN-CT-000-APP II-000-140-17-18 dt.02.08.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Pune-II ) M/s. Voss Exotech Automotive Pvt. Ltd. : Appellant VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I : Respondent
Appearance Shri M.P. Joshi, Advocate for Appellant Shri H.M. Dixit, Asstt.Commr. (A.R) for respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing : 16/02/2018 Date of decision: 16/02/2018 ORDER NO. A/85346 / 2018 The facts of this case are that the appellant availed cenvat credit during the period 1.11.2014 to 5.11.2014 on the invoices which is issued during the month of March and April 2014. The case of the department is that as per Notification No. 21/2014-CE(NT) dt.11.7.2014, the six months period prescribed for taking credit from the date of issue of invoices. Therefore the credit taken in the present case is after six months from the date of invoices issued in the month of March and April 2014. Accordingly, the cenvat credit was disallowed.
2. Shri M.P. Joshi, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the six months period was amended to 1 year vide notification No. 6/2015 dt. CE(N) dt. 1.3.2015, wherein it was provided that the credit can be taken within 1 year from the date of issue of invoice. The effect of the notification is that even in the entire period from 1.3.2014 to 28.2.2015 the credit is available. He further submits that six months period provided under Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is only procedural requirement and which cannot curtail the substantive right of modvat credit as held by the Honble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Bhopal 2016 (332) E.L.T. 411 (M.P.). He further submits that even if six months period is taken it is applicable only in respect of the invoices issued on or after 11.7.14 as the notification cannot be given the retrospective effect. He also submits that during the relevant period there was no prescribed procedure for availing the credit and no records were prescribed. He submits that in respect of the cenvat credit they have recorded in the books of accounts which can be taken as recording of cenvat credit which was made within six months time. Therefore on the ground of limitation of six months cenvat credit cannot be denied.
3. Shri H.M. Dixit, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that at the relevant time as per Notification No. 21/14-CE(NT) dt. 11. 7. 2014, the limitation provided was six months whereas the appellant have taken credit after six months from the date of invoice. Therefore credit is not admissible.
4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, I find that for denial of the credit, the Notification No.21/14-CE(NT) dt. 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-CE (NT) dt. 1.3.2015 the period available for taking credit is 1 year in terms of the notification, the invoices issued in the month of March and April 2014 become eligible for cenvat credit. I also observed that the notification No. 21/14-ST (NT) dt. 11.7.2014 should be applicable to those cases wherein the invoices were issued on or after 11.7.2014 for the reason that notification was not applicable to the invoices issued prior to the date of notification therefore at the time of issuance of the invoices no time limit was prescribed. Therefore in respect of those invoices the limitation of six months cannot be made applicable. Moreover for taking credit there is no statutory records prescribed the assessees records were considered as account for cenvat credit. Even though the credit was not entered in so called RG 23A Part-II but it is recorded in the books of accounts, it will be considered as cenvat credit was recorded. On this ground also it can be said that there is no delay in taking the credit. As per my above discussion, the appellant is entitled for the cenvat credit hence the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced & Dictated in court) (Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial) SM.
4E/87511/17