9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 73 of Finance Act, 2010 in case the amount so paid is found to be less that the amount payable, the Commissioner has to call upon the assessee to pay the differential amount along with interest. From the order passed on the declaration, we find that the applicant has deposited an amount of ₹ 2,91,696/- whereas during the period in question, the applicant claimed credit of ₹ 20,97,979/- in respect of the common input services used in or in relation to manufacture of the goods. The verification report of the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise show that the applicant requires to reverse the credit of ₹ 8,61,411/- attributable to the input services used in or in relation to manufacture of the exempted goods - rejection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce Act, 2010, the applicant filed a declaration on 15-10-2010 after reversing the credit of Rs. 2,91,696/- along with interest on the ground that this amount is attributed to the credit in respect of taxable services used in or in relation to manufacture of the exempted goods. 4. The contention of the applicant is that a show cause notice was issued demanding duty of Rs. 2,09,34,411/- in view of the provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules on the ground that the applicant had availed the credit in respect of the common input services which are used in or in relation to manufactured of excisable goods and exempted goods. 5. The Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the declaration filed under Section 73 of the Finance Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount required to be reversed. In this situation, the rejection of the declaration is not sustainable and the consequential demand in pursuance of the show cause notice is also not sustainable. 8. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate that verification was conducted in pursuance of the declaration filed and as per the report of the Dy. Commissioner, the applicant was required to reverse the credit of Rs. 8,61,411/- only attributable to the input services used in or in relation to manufacture of the exempted goods. Hence the demand is not sustainable. 9. The Revenue relied upon the evidences of the lower authority to submit that the applicant has not disclosed the true facts and circumstances, therefore, it is rightly rejected the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to the applicant. Further, we find that as per the provisions of Section 73 of Finance Act, 2010 in case the amount so paid is found to be less that the amount payable, the Commissioner has to call upon the assessee to pay the differential amount along with interest. From the order passed on the declaration, we find that the applicant has deposited an amount of Rs. 2,91,696/- whereas during the period in question, the applicant claimed credit of Rs. 20,97,979/- in respect of the common input services used in or in relation to manufacture of the goods. The verification report of the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise show that the applicant requires to reverse the credit of Rs. 8,61,411/- attributable to the input services used in or in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
