Abhishek Raja "Ram"

@abhishekrajaram

8 months ago

•View on X

š—¦š—²š—æš˜ƒš—¶š—°š—² š—§š—®š˜… – š—–š—˜š—¦š—§š—”š—§ š—žš—¼š—¹š—øš—®š˜š—®: š—”š—¼ š—§š—¶š—ŗš—² š—Ÿš—¶š—ŗš—¶š˜ š—³š—¼š—æ š—–š—²š—»š˜ƒš—®š˜ š—–š—æš—²š—±š—¶š˜ š—§š—®š—øš—²š—» š—•š—²š—³š—¼š—æš—² 11.07.2014 šŸ“¢ š—§š—µš—² š—§š—æš—¶š—Æš˜‚š—»š—®š—¹ š—µš—²š—¹š—±: The 2014 Cenvat credit time limit applies prospectively, not retrospectively, to invoices issued before the amendment date.

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—–š—¼š—ŗš—½š—®š—»š˜†: ITC Sonar (Unit of ITC Limited) š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Cenvat credit was not rightly disallowed for invoices issued before 11.07.2014, and penalty under Rule 15 was unjustified. š—”š—°š˜š—¶š˜ƒš—¶š˜š˜†: The appellant was issued a show cause notice for irregular Cenvat credit on invoices dated 2014-2015, beyond the six-month period.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal ruled that the six-month limitation introduced in Rule 4(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules applies only to invoices issued after 01.09.2014. It clarified that the amendment is not retrospective, referencing the Voss Exotech case, and thus does not apply to invoices before 11.07.2014.

šŸ“œ š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—æš—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: ITC Sonar vs. Commissioner of Service Tax – Service Tax š—¢š—æš—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 17 November 2022 šŸ“œ The ruling clarifies that the 2014 Cenvat credit time limit applies only to invoices issued after 11.07.2014.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on X

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own