AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 804
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld to be absent. It is submitted in the application that the normal period of limitation was increased to 2 years with effect from 14 May 2016 and the show cause notice was issued on 6 June 2017. If this new provision is considered, part of the period was within the normal period of limitation and hence the demand, interest and penalty need to be upheld for the period May 2015 to March 2016. It is also submitted in Ground E of the application that the aggravating factors which would attract invoking extended period of limitation were also present in the case. However, when it was pointed out by the bench that a finding has been given in the 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rge period of limitation than that provided by the earlier Act. On the same principle, if right to execute a degree or judgement gets barred under an earlier Act, the right is not revived by later Act. When the later Act provides a short period of limitation, than that provided by the earlier Act, a right of suit, which is subsisting according to the earlier Act on the date when the later Act came into comes into operation, will not be taken to be extinguished. If there is still time even on the basis of the later Act within which suit can be filed, the right has to be availed of within that period and the benefit of the earlier act is not available period. Condonation of 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.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., but which the appellant now wants to take is as follows: "In case of non-fulfilment of obligations under Rule 6 of CCR, an amount under Rule 6(3) of CCR cannot be recovered under Rule 14 as held by the High Court of Telangana in the case of Tiara Advertising versus Union of India [2019 (30) G.S.T.L. 474 (Telangana)]. This decision was followed by this Tribunal in several cases. Therefore, the entire demand is not sustainable as it was a demand of an amount payable under Rule 6(3A)". 13. Learned authorised representative for the Revenue vehemently opposed this Miscellaneous Application and asserted that the two grounds now reiterated by the appellant were already considered in the final order of this Tribunal. He also 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also does not matter if the exemption notification was conditional or unconditional. If the notification is conditional and the appellant fulfils the conditions, it can claim the benefit of exemption notification. If it does not fulfil the conditions, it will not be entitled the benefit of the notification. Clearly, the goods cleared by the appellant were chargeable to duty but were exempted by the Notification No. 12/2012-CE (Sr. No.179). Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that they should be treated as dutiable although the exemption notification was claimed and no duty was paid." 16. We therefore find no error, let alone and error apparent on record on this ground. 17. The second ground in the appellant's request for rectification of mistake is 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 pri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relied on several orders of this Tribunal and the judgments of High Courts. The first judgment in the series is of the High Court of Telangana in the case of Tiara Advertising which was followed in subsequent decisions. 23. We find that this ground was not taken at any stage before the original authority or in the appeal and the appellant cannot now take it in an application for rectification of mistake. Rule 41 of the CENVAT credit Rules provides for rectification of an error apparent on record and not to re-argue the case on some new grounds never taken before. 24. We also find that this submission of the learned counsel is due to a complete mis-understanding of the decisions relied and the appellant's case. In all the cases relied upon, the assessee had availed 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....