9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicating authority, there will not be any change in respect of the status of the predeposit made by the appellant in terms of the CESTAT, Bangalore. - Appeal disposed of. - Appeal(s) Involved : E/718/2012-SM - Final Order No. 21937 / 2015 - Dated:- 16-9-2015 - Shri Ashok K. Arya, Technical Member For the Petitioner : Shri M.A. Narayan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Ajay Saxena, Commissioner(AR) ORDER Per : ASHOK K. ARYA Both the sides have been heard in detail. 2. The matter concerns with the obligation under Rule 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on the manufacturer assessee who is producing both types of goods viz. dutiable as well as non-dutiable / exempted i.e. goods attracting nil rate of duty. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 2004. He refers to para 19 of the above decision, which is as under:- 19. From the above findings read with the contents of the show cause notice, quoted above, it cannot be said that the appellants have not maintained the accounts in respect of cenvated inputs and non-cenvated inputs. What was necessary for the authorities to ascertain from his account, whether it discloses the accounts pertaining to the receipt, consumption and inventory of the inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable products separately from those used in the manufacture of exempted products. Indeed, the impugned order nowhere discloses any such exercises having been done by the authorities. On the contrary, the findings in the impugned order is to the effect tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty of Central Excise. The learned AR has referred to the decision of CESTAT, Mumbai in the case of R.R. Paints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai [2013(288) ELT 289 (Tri. Mumbai)] saying that when the appellant availed input credit for both dutiable as well as exempted products and did not maintain separate accounts, they were required to pay as per the provisions of Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules an amount equivalent to 10% of the value of the exempted goods as duty. He also says that this decision of the CESTAT, Mumbai has been upheld by Hon ble High Court of Mumbai in case of R.R. Paints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai-III [2014(33) STR 156 (Bom.)]. 6. From the facts and the pleadings by both the sides, it emerges that the main crux is whether th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty who is to verify the submissions of the appellant that they were maintaining separate accounts in terms of Rule 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules and liability of payment of duty under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules does not arise against them. It is made clear here that till the verification is made and fresh decision is arrived at by the original adjudicating authority, there will not be any change in respect of the status of the predeposit made by the appellant in terms of the CESTAT, Bangalores Stay Order No.1704/2012 dt. 24/09/2012. It is also ordered that the original adjudicating authority must ensure verification of the submissions made by the appellant within six weeks of the issue of this order and thereafter the case must be adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
