9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rituraj Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (2013 (2) TMI 34 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) wherein it has been held that if the assessee reversed proportionate cenvat credit attributable to final exempted product in this case the assessee has complied with Rule 6(3) of the Rules, is not required to pay duty equal to 10% sale price of the exempted final products. - Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that while reversal of cenvat credit, the appellant has taken the sale percentage of exempted goods i.e. agricultural implements as basis of calculation of proportionate credit, which is not correct and thereafter he denied the whole credit. The contention of the learned AR is not acceptable at all as in the show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmed the demand alongwith interest and dropped the penalty. Aggrieved with the said order, the appellant is before. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that as the appellant is using furnace oil for both final products dutiable as well as exempted, they are reversing proportionate cenvat credit attributable to exempted final products periodically and they are informing the department from time to time. As they have reversed the proportionate cenvat credit, therefore, the demand is not sustainable as held by the Apex Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Nagpur-1996 (81) ELT 3 (SC) and in the case of Rituraj Holdings Pvt. Ltd.-2014 (305) ELT 459 (Guj.). 5. On the other hand, learned AR submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l to 10% sale price of the exempted final products. 8. During the course of argument, learned AR raised objection that the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that while reversal of cenvat credit, the appellant has taken the sale percentage of exempted goods i.e. agricultural implements as basis of calculation of proportionate credit, which is not correct and thereafter he denied the whole credit. The contention of the learned AR is not acceptable at all as in the show cause notice only charge against the appellant that they have contravened the provisions of Rule 6(3) and in their defence the appellant has stated that they are reversing proportionate cenvat credit. If at all there is difference, the Commissioner (Appeals) could quantify t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
