9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order]. This appeal is directed against Order in Appeal No. RKR (133) 76/2006 dated 23-8-2006 which set aside the order-in-original. 2. The issue involved in this case is that whether Cenvat Credit can be availed on the input which are exclusively used in the manufacture of excisable products. The Adjudicating authority disallowed the Modvat credit taken by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urview of Rule 57CC. Under the scheme of Rule 57CC, the inputs should be common for both dutiable and exempted goods. Revenue charge thus is valid as per particular provisions of law. But the matter cannot be looked in isolation and this has to be seen in the whole context of the Cenvat utilization scheme to allow set off of cascading effect. The matter has also to be seen in the context of totali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure of dutiable final products and on common inputs used in exempted products. The learned Consultant appearing on behalf of the Respondent contends that the demand of 8% of the value of exempted goods was already paid and is more than the credit availed by them. The Respondent was not aware of the provision of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, availed Cenvat credit on all inputs which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inputs used exclusively for manufacture of exempted products under provisions of Rule 57C and would fall beyond purview of Rule 57CC, seems to be correct. The availment of Modvat Credit on the inputs used exclusively for exempted products is covered by the provisions of Rule 57C, hence availment of Credit on such inputs is void-ab-initio. The appellants contention is that they have paid more than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the current case before me, there is no finding on this issue by the learned Commissioner (A). 6. To my mind the learned Commissioner (A) should have considered Rule 57C and 57CC of the Central Excise Rules 1944 individually. There are no findings on the point of time bar as claimed by the appellant. The impugned order having not considered these issues, is a non-speaking order. In the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
