9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prior 01.03.2011. Apparently and admittedly the written off qua stores and spares was made in the year 2012 with the reversal of cenvat credit, thereof, i.e. prior the aforesaid Notification of March, 2013. Hence, it becomes clear that Department vide this show cause notice proposing recovery under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules has given retrospective effect to the said Notification. Notification is clear enough to be effective w.e.f. 1 March, 2013 only. Any legislation can have prospective effect only unless and until expressly given the retrospective effect. The same is not true for the said Notification - the Department was not entitled to invoke Rule 14 while proposing the recovery of reversed cenvat credit alleging it to be short. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been purchased in or before the year 2002 when the rate of central excise duty was 16% and the assessee, therefore, would have availed the credit of duty @16%. Forming an opinion that the reversal was also required to be @ 16% the amount reversed is alleged to be short. Resultantly, vide show cause notice No. 1213 dated 26.04.2017 cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 23,90,020/- was proposed to be recovered from them alleging the same to be shortly reversed by the appellant. Interest at the appropriate rate and the proportionate penalty was also proposed vide the said show cause notice. The said proposal was confirmed vide the Order-in-Original No 01/2017 dated 21.12.2017. The Appeal thereof was rejected vide the Order under challenge. Bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. Department was not entitled for invoking the extended period of limitation. The order under challenge is alleged to have ignored the above mentioned submissions. Accordingly, is prayed to be set aside. Learned Counsel has prayed for the Appeal to be allowed while relying upon the following case laws: Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur reported at 2019 (3) TMI 776 (CESTAT, New Delhi); BCH Electric Ltd. Vs. CCE, Faridabad-I reported at 2016(344)E.L.T.469(Tri. Chan.); and Heidelberg Cement India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore reported at 2017 (11) TMI 1394 (CESTAT, Bangalore); 4. Per contra learned Authorised Representative while justifying the order under challenge ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it has been reversed @ 12.36% but simultaneous fact of this Appeal is that there is no documentary evidence on record. The initial burden was definitely of the appellant to prove the mode of reversing the credit at the lower rate but the simultaneous fact remains is that no document is produced by Department either to support the allegations. It is apparent from the order under challenge that there is clear acknowledgement on part of the Department that the appellant has informed the reversal of credit as was done by them vide their letter dated 26.09.2013 itself. The said acknowledgment on part of the Department is sufficient to hold that present is not at all the suppression of facts as is alleged in the Order under challenge. The show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd until expressly given the retrospective effect. The same is not true for the said Notification. Resultantly, I am of the firm opinion that Department was not entitled to invoke Rule 14 while proposing the recovery of reversed cenvat credit alleging it to be short. 8. I have gone through the case law as relied upon by the appellant in Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) case. It has been held as follows: The provision was introduced only first time by amendment of Rule 3(5B) of Cenvat Credit Rules, with effect from 01.03.2011. Further, there was no provision prior to 01 March 2013 for recovery of cenvat credit and interest thereon under Rule 3(5B) etc. which was made applicable with effect from 01.3.2013 only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
