AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein credit has been denied to them on the premise as per Notification No.02/14-CE
(N.T.) dt.20.1.2014, the appellant was not entitled to credit prior to the Notification No.01/10-CE dt.6.2.2010.
The facts of the case are that the appellant is located in the State of Jammu & Kashmir and availing the benefit of exemption Notification
No.01/10-CE dt.6.2.2010. The appellant procured certain inputs and availed credit of duty paid on these inputs. The case of the Revenue is that during
the relevant period i.e. 14.8.2012 to 19.1.2014, an assessee is not entitled to avail credit against the inputs issued by the units, who are availing
exemption under Notification No.01/10-CE dt.6.2.2010 and after introduction of Notification No.02/14-CE (N.T.) dt.20.1.2014, the notification
No.01/10-CE dt.6.2.2010 was amended thereafter the credit was available to the assessee. The matter was adjudicated, the credit availed by the
appellant was denied. Against the said order, the appellant is before me.
Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the period involved in this case is 14.8.2012 to 19.1.2014 whereas the show cause notice has been issued
on 17.8.2017 by invoking the extended period of limitation. He also submits that in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Limited vs. CCE, Noida-2017
(352) ELT 396 (Tri.-All.), the appellant is entitled to take credit on the inputs.
On the other hand, Ld.AR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order and submits that in cases of similarly placed
assessee where the credit was allowed to them located in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the appeals have been filed by the Revenue before the
Commissioner (Appeals).
Heard the parties and considered the submissions.
Without going into the merits of the case, I find that similarly placed assessee was allowed the credit although against those orders, the appeals
have been filed by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals), in that circumstance, when the Revenue is having divergent views on the issue,
the extended period of limitation is not applicable. Admittedly, in this case, the show cause notice has been issued by invoking the extended period of
limitation, therefore, I hold that the denial of credit is barred by limitation. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with
consequential relief, if any.
(dictated &Pronounced in the open Court)