Beneficial circular cannot be retrospectively withdrawn

Chittor Polyfab Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Central Goods And Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi)

The circular dated 08.06.2018 also cannot be made retrospectively applicable to the period in question (April 2015 to June, 2017). At the relevant time, circular No. 988/12/2014 CX dated 20.10.2014 / Circular No. 97/8/2007-CX dated 23.8.2007 were applicable. It has been time and again been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the beneficial circular cannot be retrospectively withdrawn. Consequently benefit of the said circular shall continue to be available to the appellant. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the Adjudicating Authority Below has wrongly disallowed the CENVAT Credit relying upon the decision of Ultratech Cement (supra) and consequent circulars of 2018.

Coming to the issue of invoking extended period of It is observed that the Circular No. 1065/4/2018-CX dated 08.06.2018 as has been relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority below, itself clarifies as under:

“ No extended period : Any new show cause notice issued on the basis of this Circular should not invoke extended period of limitation in cases where an alternate interpretation was taken by the assessee before the date of the Supreme Court judgement (in Ultratech Cement) as the issue is in the nature of interpretation.”

Above all, it is apparent on record that credit has been shown in the ER-1 returns filed by the appellant from time to time. Neither suppression nor misrepresentation of facts can be alleged against the appellant. The alleged suppression of facts on part of the appellant that too with an intent to evade payment of duty is therefore not sustainable. It is accordingly held that the Department was not entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.