9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ercise an option and follow the procedure prescribed therein if the appellant does not maintain separate accounts. In Josts Engineering Co. Ltd. case, the appellants had maintained separate accounts in respect of inputs but by mistake they did not maintain separate accounts in respect of input services. When it was pointed out to them, they reversed the entire credit attributable to dutiable as well as exempted products taken by them in respect of input services. Taking this into consideration and taking the fact that appellant had maintained separate accounts in respect of inputs, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the reversal of entire credit would be sufficient and it amounts to non-availment of credit and when credit is not avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 21.08.2013 directed the Tribunal to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and decide the modification application since the modification had been rejected without giving an opportunity to the appellants to present their case. Accordingly the modification application has been taken up today for consideration. 2. The issue involved is whether the appellant is required to pay 5% of the total value of the exempted product, Slice' manufactured by them in terms of provisions of Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 since they did not maintain separate accounts in respect of inputs used by them. The period involved is February 2010 to May 2010. 3. The learned counsel submitted that the very same issue had come ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces at all, the provisions of Rule 6(3)(i) is not attracted. We find that the decision would be applicable to the facts of this case also. However since the Tribunal took the view in view of the fact that appellant had reversed the entire credit taken by the appellant therein and the credit was reversed where separate accounts was not maintained i.e. mainly input services, we consider that in this case also the appellant would be required to reverse the entire amount of CENVAT credit taken in respect of common input. Needless to say if an amount has already been paid, that can be deducted from the amount payable. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to reverse that credit within 8 weeks and report compliance on 28.04.2014. Subject to comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
