9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant's Letter dated 28.10.2010, alongwith interest, as agitated by learned AR - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/724/2011 - Order No. A/11145/2015 - Dated:- 30-7-2015 - H. K. Thakur, Member (T), J. For the Appellant : Shri Jigar Shah, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Govind Jha, AR ORDER Per H K Thakur This appeal has been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No BC/18/SURAT-II/2011 Dated 15.03.2011 under which OIO No. 05/JC/NKS/DEM/2010 Dated 04.09.2015 passed by Adjudicating Authority has been upheld. 2. Sh. Jigar Shah (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that appellant was issued a show cause notice for paying 10% amount on the value of exempted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hmd.)] 3. Sh. Govind Jha, (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue defended the orders passed by the lower authorities. It was his case that the fact of appellant having filed application dated 28.10.2010, alongwith CA's Certificate before Commissioner, was not taken up before the lower authorities. That the fact of having paid the amounts as per amended provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 effective from 08.05.2010 has to be verified. It was his arguement that if on merit the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed this payments made by the appellant needs verification. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. Issue involved in this appeal is whether appellant is required to pay 10% amount on the value of exempted good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nputs used in the manufacture of exempted final products during the material period. The appellant has also placed on record copies of 21 invoices at pages 349 to 370 of the appeal papers of Appeal No. E/449/2011 showing receipt of exempted input (Alpha Beta Arteether) of value of about three crore rupees during the material period, for which no Cenvat credit could be taken. In view of these facts on record, we find that the method adopted by the adjudicating authority for working out of the demand of ₹ 88,41,543/-, on the basis of 8% or 10% of the sale price of dutiable and exempted final products, is not maintainable. We, therefore, remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for proper verification of appellant's claim of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n verified and interest of ₹ 3,25,655/- was directed to be paid as per Commissioner's letter dt. 25-10-10, and the assessees have paid the above amount of interest). They are, therefore, covered by the amendment made to the Finance Act in 2010 for the period upto 31-3-08 and therefore the demand for the period upto 31-3-08 is set aside as not sustainable. As regards the second period, the assessees have been reversing credit as per Rule 6(3A) and in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court CCE v ETA Technologies Pvt. Ltd - [2010-TIOL-569-HC-Kar], wherein it was held that once the credit is reversed on exempted goods, it is deemed that credit has not been taken, the demand for this period is also set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
