9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n arose before the amendment but the proceedings were initiated thereafter, the amended limitation will apply. However, if the period of limitation had already lapsed under the old law before initiating the proceedings, the amendment will not revive the lapsed period. In this case, although the cause of action arose prior to the amendment, the show cause notice was issued after the amendment. The cause of action, viz., the alleged short reversal of an amount under Rule 6(3A) occurred during April 2012 to March 2016 and the limitation was increased to two years on 14 May 2016. The show cause was issued on 6 June 2017. Therefore, the period from May 2015 to March 2016 was within the normal period of limitation of two years on the date of issue of show cause notice. The appellant itself had chosen the option of following Rule 6(3A) and the department had not forced it upon the appellant. Having chosen an option, the appellant calculated the amount to be paid in a particular manner which, according to the Revenue, was incorrect. Only the calculation of the amount is in dispute. Specifically, the dispute was whether the goods exempted by notification no. 12/2012-CE should be considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he final order that the aggravating factors required for invoking extended period of limitation were absent, learned authorised representative did not press this submission and only prayed that the demand and interest for the normal period of limitation may be upheld. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant opposed Revenue s application and submitted that although the amended section 11A increasing the normal period of limitation to 2 years was in place when the show cause notice was issued, the demand pertained to April 2012 to March 2016 when the normal period of limitation was only one year period. Therefore, the amended limitation would not apply. He, therefore prayed that the department s application for rectification mistake may be rejected. 4. Learned counsel also submitted that the demand in this case was of an amount allegedly short paid under Rule 6(3A) under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 [CCR]. While Rule 6 (3A) provides for recovery of an amount short paid, it does not provide for recovery of interest or imposition of penalty. He, therefore, prays that even if the demand for normal period is confirmed as prayed for in the application by the Revenue, interest and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay in such cases in filing the suit or claim will be dealt with the provisions of the later Act and not with the provisions of the earlier Act. But if the shorter period provided in the later Act had already expired on the date of its enforcement, the suit can be filed within reasonable time after the commencement of the later Act, otherwise, the effect of the later Act would be to extinguish a subsisting right of suit, an inference which cannot be reached except from express enactment or necessary implication . (Emphasis supplied) 8. In this case, although the cause of action arose prior to the amendment, the show cause notice was issued after the amendment. The cause of action, viz., the alleged short reversal of an amount under Rule 6(3A) occurred during April 2012 to March 2016 and the limitation was increased to two years on 14 May 2016. The show cause was issued on 6 June 2017. Therefore, the period from May 2015 to March 2016 was within the normal period of limitation of two years on the date of issue of show cause notice. The submission of the learned authorised representative for the revenue, therefore, deserves to be accepted on this issue. 9. As far as the recovery o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so submitted that insofar as the new ground is concerned, the case of Tiara Advertising and the other cases in which the Tribunal followed it are concerned, they were dealing with situations in which the assessee had not chosen one of the options under Rule 6 of CCR to fulfil its obligations and the department issued a notice choosing one of the options. The High Court held that the options are available to the assessee and it is not open for the department to choose an option for the assessee and force it upon it. In this case, the appellant itself has chosen one of the options and calculated and paid an amount under Rule 6(3A) and this fact is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the calculation of the amount and for the purpose of this calculation, the exempted footwear cleared by the appellant should be considered as exempted or duty paid goods. Therefore, there is no error apparent on record insofar is the submissions in this application is concerned, which may therefore be rejected. 14. We have considered the submissions from both sides on this application. The first ground in this application is that the Tribunal had not considered its submission that the exempted footwear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that its submission that the benefit provided under notification number 12/2012 CE (S. No. 179) is really not an exemption, but only a simplification process to avoid unnecessary paper paperwork was not considered. Learned counsel submits that duty was already paid on the footwear by its supplier and duty cannot be charged twice on the same goods. He also emphasised that there was no difference in the maximum retail price (MRP) of the footwear at the hands of its supplier and the MRP at which the appellant had sold the goods. It is his submission that this was not considered adequately in the final order. 18. We find no force in these submissions. Duty or tax can be charged and is charged at different stages in the process of manufacture. This is the scheme of central excise duty, VAT, GST, etc. For instance, if A procures material worth ₹100/-, manufactures goods and sells them to B for ₹110/-, he has to pay duty on ₹110/- and not on ₹10/- which is his value addition. Of course, if duty was already paid on Rs. 100/- worth of material by his suppliers, he can take credit of the duty so paid as per the Rules. However, as far as his liability is concerned, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CENVAT credit on common inputs/input services, but had not chosen one of the options under Rule 6 of CCR to fulfil its obligations. The department chose and forced an option under Rule 6 of CCR on the assessee and demanded an amount equal to a percentage of the value of the exempted goods. The High Court held that the options are for the assessee to choose and the department cannot choose and thrust an option on the assessee. It is in that context, it was held that Rule 14 does not provide for recovery of an amount under Rule 6(3). 25. This case is clearly different. The appellant itself had chosen the option of following Rule 6(3A) and the department had not forced it upon the appellant. Having chosen an option, the appellant calculated the amount to be paid in a particular manner which, according to the Revenue, was incorrect. Only the calculation of the amount is in dispute. Specifically, the dispute was whether the goods exempted by notification no. 12/2012-CE should be considered as exempted goods or not exempted goods for the purpose of calculation of an amount to be paid under Rule 6 (3A) of CCR, 2004. Once the assessee has chosen an option and the dispute is only regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
