9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the value of exempted products as per provision in rule 6(3). For certain period, the amount demanded is 5% in view of change in the rate prescribed under rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – Held that:- When an assessee gave a calculation of credit attributable to the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted products, the only option available to Revenue was to either accept the calculati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such changeover of the management and that the delay was not due to negligence. Considering the explanation given, the delay is condoned and the COD application is thus allowed. 2. The dispute involved in this case is that the appellant is using inputs in the manufacture of both exempted and dutiable products and the appellants did not follow procedures prescribed in rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even before the retrospective amendment, during the relevant period, the rule in force authorized such reversal of credit and they have done such reversal as per their own method. But the Revenue was not satisfied by the procedure followed by the appellant and, therefore, Revenue has confirmed the demand for 10%/5% of the price of the exempted goods for the reason that the procedure prescribed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee gave a calculation of credit attributable to the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted products, the only option available to Revenue was to either accept the calculation or say what is wrong with the calculation and give Revenue's calculation with proper basis and ask the assessee to rebut Revenue's calculation. It was no longer open to demand 10% of the price or 5% of the price as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
