9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed that he appellant has written off inventory of stores and spares on 30.09.2012 on a demand of 12.36% and 14.42%. As per summary of inventory written off details submitted by the appellant at the time of said audit, it was observed that the appellant terminated its production in the year 2002 hence, the store and spares would have 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 Rs. 23,90,020/- was proposed to be recovered fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leged to be not sustainable it being retrospective in nature while invoking said Rule 14. It is also submitted that show cause notice is otherwise barred by time. Nothing was ever concealed from the Department as immediately after reversing the cenvat credit on stores and spares the requisite return was filed. 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- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such goods prior 01.03.2011. 5.1 Apparently and admittedly the cenvat credit was reversed in the year 2012, no doubt, the duty of central excise at the time of purchase of such store and spare was @ 16%, and that the credit 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 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 prio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
