Page 76 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

402 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
2016. The said fact is not being disputed by the appellant and their only conten-
tion is that as he was not well, two days delay may be condoned.
5. I find that there is no power or jurisdiction of this Court to interfere
in the legislation so as to enlarge the period of limitation as provided in the noti-
fication. The beneficial notifications have to be interpreted strictly and once the
condition of the notification is not satisfied, the benefit cannot be extended. The
Authorities working under the Act are bound by the provisions of the Act and
notification in question has not given any powers to condone the time period, as
held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hongo India (P) Ltd., 1998 (98)
E.L.T. 583 (S.C.) (sic). As such, I find no merits in the appeal. The same is accord-
ingly rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
_______
2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 402 (Tri. - Del.)

IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
[COURT NO. II]
Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J)
CONTINENTAL ENGINES PVT. LTD.
Versus
COMMR. OF CGST, ALWAR
Final Order No. A/51007/2019-SM(BR), dated 23-7-2019 in Appeal
No. E/54032/2018-SM
Cenvat credit - Limitation period of one year prescribed under third
proviso to Rule 4(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 not applicable for taking of
credit which was initially short availed due to clerical error but availed later
on after rectifying mistake particularly when initial taking of credit was with-
in stipulated time. [para 7]
Matter remanded
CASES CITED
Commissioner v. Gyan Packaging India Pvt. Ltd.
— 2007 (218) E.L.T. 255 (Tribunal) — Referred ...................................................................... [Paras 5, 7]
Voss Exotech Automotive Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner
— 2018 (363) E.L.T. 1141 (Tribunal) — Referred .................................................................... [Paras 5, 7]
REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri K. Poddar, Authorised Representative (DR), for
the Respondent.
[Order]. - Heard the parties.
2. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the discrepancy being in
the nature of short availment of Cenvat credit due to accounting error and sub-
sequent taking of such short credit is hit by the third proviso to Rule 4(1) of Cen-
vat Credit Rules, 2004.
3. The Learned Counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is a
manufacturer of engine parts - automotive solution heads which are dutiable
under Chapter Heading 8409 of the 1st Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act. On
GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  196