2026-VIL-1373-CESTAT-CHD-CE
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1373-CESTAT-CHD-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - CENVAT credit on inputs procured from manufacturers availing exemption notification - Applicability of Rule 12 of CCR, 2004 - Department took the view that CENVAT credit on inputs cleared by exempted units was not admissible before the amendment in Rule 12 by way of Notification No.02/2014-CE dated 20.01.2014 - SCN invoking extended period of limitation demanding denial of CENVAT credit - Appellant contended that Rule 12 does not restrict availment of credit under Rule 3, the amendment is merely a clarification and should apply retrospectively - Whether CENVAT credit is admissible on inputs procured from manufacturers availing exemption notification before the amendment in Rule 12 dated 20.01.2014 - HELD - The scheme of CENVAT credit has to be read in a harmonious manner and not in isolation with reference to one or two Rules. The scheme of CENVAT credit provides that credit of inputs or input service shall be admissible to the manufacturer under the following conditions: the input or input service has suffered duty, such input or input service are used in the manufacture of final products, and such credit is received under the cover of prescribed invoice or document. In the instant case, none of these conditions are disputed - CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because express provision for credit from exempted supplies came at a later date by amendment. Before the amendment in Rule 12 there was no express prohibition in the CENVAT Credit Rules to deny credit availed by the appellant. The absence of an express permission at an earlier date cannot be construed to mean that credit is only admissible from the date of amendment - The amendment to Rule 12 is in the nature of clarification and does not create a new permission but merely clarifies what was permitted by the scheme - Regarding invocation of extended period, where the issue arises on basis of audit and involves legal interpretation of statutory provisions, extended period cannot be invoked. The fact that Department conducted audits regularly and processed refund claims shows Dept had knowledge of the facts. The appellant succeeds both on merits and on the question of limitation - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTAT Filing: Closing Resolutions...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?