9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken on inputs/input service alongwith interest which has gone into the manufacture of final exempted products - benefit of this amended Rule 6 by Section 73 of Finance Act, 2010 is not available - E/2684-2685/2009-SM(BR) - 569-570/2011-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 19-7-2011 - Shri Ashok Jindal, J. REPRESENTED BY Shri Manjit Singh, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri B.L. Soni, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order for confirmation of demand alongwith and equivalent amount of penalty for not reversing the amount equal to 10% of the value of goods cleared without payment of duty by claiming exemption under Notification No. 33/05, dated 8-9-2005 and confirmation of penalty on Ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufacturers of excisable goods and they are not required to maintain separate account for dutiable as well as exempted goods. He further submitted that the exemption has been claimed for their cooling tower under Notification No. 33/05, dated 8-9-2005. They are manufacturing excisable goods and cleared to M/s. Empee Syndichem Distilleries Ltd. Therefore, they are not covered under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and are not required to reverse any amount on these clearances. 4. In alternate he submitted that in 2010 with the amendment of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules through Section 73 of Finance Act, 2010 provide that if the assessee reverses the credit on inputs and input service which has gone into the manufacture of their final ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s admitted fact that the appellants are not maintaining separate accounts for inputs/inputs service which has gone into manufacture of dutiable as well as final exempted products. Therefore, the appellants are liable to pay 10% of the value of the goods cleared without payment of duty under Notification No. 33/2005-C.E., dated 8-9-2005. He further submitted that although amendment of Rule 6 by Section 73 of Finance Act, 2010 came into effect with giving retrospective effect wherein it was provided that the assessee can reverse the credit taken on inputs/input service which has gone into manufacture of final exempted product. In that case, the assessee is not liable to pay 8% or 10% of the value of final products but by way of amendment, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 8-9-2005. As per Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules if the assessee is manufacturing both dutiable as well as exempted goods claiming exemption under a notification, the assessee is required to maintain separate account for inputs/inputs service which has gone into manufacture of dutiable as well as final exempted products. In this case, the appellants have not done so. Therefore, as per Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the assessee is required to reverse the credit of 10% of the value of the goods. As the law is very clear on this point, therefore, the benefit of bona fide belief is not available to the assessee. Therefore, the case law relied upon by the appellants are not applicable to the facts of the present case. With regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
