9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (11) TMI 167 - AT - Central ExciseInput credit taken in respect of the common input services, used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted as well as dutiable goods No separate accounts are maintained - Held that - Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, are amended retrospectively and the manufacturer has to file declaration showing the reversal of credit of inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods. In the present case as the applicants filed necessary declaration the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner to decide afresh.
Issues: Stay applications, waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty, retrospective amendment of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, maintaining separate accounts for exempted and dutiable goods, remand for fresh decision.
In this case, the applicant filed two stay applications in one appeal, with one application being maintainable, leading to the dismissal of the second application as infructuous. The applicant sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty, as the demand was confirmed under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, alleging the lack of separate account maintenance for exempted and dutiable goods. The Revenue contended that the demand was valid due to the applicant's failure to maintain separate accounts. However, the applicant argued that the retrospective amendment of Rule 6 required a declaration for credit reversal, which they had filed, necessitating reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal noted the retrospective amendment of Rule 6, mandating a declaration for credit reversal regarding inputs used in manufacturing exempted goods. As the applicant had filed the necessary declaration and reversed the credit for input services related to exempted goods, the impugned order was set aside, and the pre-deposit of dues was waived. The matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner for a fresh decision after providing the appellant with a hearing opportunity. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of by way of remand, ensuring a reconsideration of the case based on the retrospective amendment and the applicant's compliance with the necessary declaration requirements.
|
