9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for them and, in that scenario, there is no point in saying that the assessee had the option of paying 10% of the value of the exempted final product - it has not been shown on behalf of the Revenue that it was possible for the assessee to maintain separate accounts in respect of common input services vis-a-vis dutiable final products and the exempted final product - Decided in favour of the assessee - E/246/2009 - S/135/2009-WZB/C-IV/(SMB) - Dated:- 19-5-2009 - Shri P.G. Chacko, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Vijay Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri P.K. Agarwal, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I note that the appellants have been required to pay duty of Rs. 3, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain separate accounts and reverse Cenvat credit on common input services correctly after the period of dispute, which means that maintenance of separate accounts was possible during the period of dispute as well. The learned counsel, on this aspect, seeks to clarify that they have been following the procedure laid down under Rule 6(3A)(b) and (c) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 ever since these provisions came into force (2008). Prior to this, the counsel submits, it was impossible for the assessee to maintain separate accounts and hence they could only reverse Cenvat credit on common input services on a pro rata basis. This pro rata calculation was done on the basis of the amount of production and the amounts of inputs and input services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the effect that no law shall require a person to do the impossible. Any provision of law, which requires a person to do the impossible, is no law in the eye of the prudent man. If the appellant was not capable of maintaining separate accounts in relation to common input services, there was no workable option for them and, in that scenario, there is no point in saying that the assessee had the option of paying 10% of the value of the exempted final product. In the instant case, it has not been shown on behalf of the Revenue that it was possible for the assessee to maintain separate accounts in respect of common input services vis-a-vis dutiable final products and the exempted final product. Where the Revenue fails to discharge its burden, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
