Page 40 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

J14 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
In case of Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India - 2018 (17) G.S.T.L. 3
(Guj.), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court followed the dictum of the Supreme
Court in Jayam & Co. v. Assistant Commissioner - 2018 (19) G.S.T.L. 3 (S.C.), and
reiterated that the input tax credit could not be denied on the basis of an
amendment, which is prospective. The question dealt with by the High Court
was whether Section 140A(3)(iv) of the CGST Act, which denied the Cenvat cred-
it in relation to goods purchased prior to one year from the appointed date, could
be given retrospective effect.
In case of Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of India - 1999 (106) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.),
for the proposition that a right accrued to the assessee on the date when they
paid the tax on the raw materials or the inputs and that right would continue
until the facility available thereto gets worked out or until those goods existed.
Apex Court in the case has observed and held as under :-
6. We may look at the matter from another angle. If on the inputs, the as-
sessee had already paid the taxes on the basis that when the goods are uti-
lized in the manufacture of further products as inputs thereto then the tax on
these goods gets adjusted which are finished subsequently. Thus, a right ac-
crued to the assessee on the date when they paid the tax on the raw materials
or the inputs and that right would continue until the facility available thereto
gets worked out or until those goods existed.
In case of Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Dai Ichi Karkaria, 1999 (112) E.L.T. 353
(S.C.), referring to the decision in case of Eicher Motors Limited v. Union of India -
1999 (106) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), held that when credit has been validly taken, its benefit is
available to the manufacturer without any limitation in time. The credit is indefea-
sible. It was observed as under :
17. It is clear from these Rules, as we read them, that a manufacturer obtains
credit for the excise duty paid on raw material to be used by him in the pro-
duction of an excisable product immediately it makes the requisite declara-
tion and obtains an acknowledgement thereof. It is entitled to use the credit at
any time thereafter when making payment of excise duty on the excisable
product. There is no provision in the Rules which provides for a reversal of
the credit by the excise authorities except where it has been illegally or irregu-
larly taken, in which event it stands cancelled or if utilized, has to be paid for.
We are here really concerned with credit that has been validly taken, and its
benefit is available to the manufacturer without any limitation in time or oth-
erwise unless the manufacturer itself chooses not to use the raw material in
its excisable product. The credit is, therefore, indefeasible. It should also be
noted that there is no co-relation of the raw material and the final product;
that is to say, it is not as if credit can be taken only on a final product that is
manufactured out of the particular raw material to which the credit is related.
The credit may be taken against the excise duty on a final product manufac-
tured on the very day that it becomes available.
Author would also like to say that rights or privileges acquired or accrued under
the repealed Act are saved by the provisions of Section 174(2)(c) of the said Act. In
other words, the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 are repealed but the previ-
ous operations are saved and supported by transitional provisions. It may also be
noted that the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 are repealed from 1-7-2017,
the date of commencement of the CGST Act, 2017, vide Section 174(1) of the CGST
Act, 2017 but at the same time, certain rights or privileges acquired or accrued un-

GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  40