9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 1134 - AT - Central ExciseReversal of Cenvat credit - the respondents were having separate account for their inputs but they failed to maintain separate account of input services and they reversed proportionately after availing the cenvat credit of input service after removal of the goods - Held that - Through the Budget 2010 an amendment has been made under Section 73 of Finance Act, 2010 in Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and on the basis of that amendment, this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Pune-I vs. M/s.Emcure Pharmaceuticals 2010 (1) TMI 333 - CESTAT, MUMBAI has held that as the assessee has reversed proportionately cenvat credit availed on input service after clearance of their finished exempted goods and amendment in section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010 have given retrospective effect to Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
Reversal of Cenvat credit due to manufacturing both dutiable and exempted products without separate account maintenance. Analysis: The case dealt with the issue of reversal of Cenvat credit where the assessee manufactured both dutiable and exempted products without maintaining a separate account. The respondents had a separate account for inputs but failed to maintain a separate account of input services. They reversed the credit proportionately after availing the Cenvat credit of input services upon goods removal. An amendment under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010 in Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was introduced through the Budget 2010. The Tribunal referred to a previous case, CCE, Pune-I vs. M/s.Emcure Pharmaceuticals-CESTAT-MUM, where it was held that the assessee's reversal of Cenvat credit on input service after clearance of exempted goods was in compliance with the retrospective effect of the amendment. The Tribunal noted that the issue was no longer res integra and confirmed that the respondents had already reversed the credit in line with the retrospective effect of the amendment. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected. The cross objection was disposed of accordingly.
|
