9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be taken for calculation of 10% reversal required under 6(3)(b). As regard the 10% reversal made by the appellant and even though the same was collected from the customer the same was not retained by the appellant as the same was debited in their Cenvat credit account, therefore in this fact, it could not be said that 10 % reversal is part and parcel of the price of the goods. - in Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004, prior to 1/4/2008 the 10% reversal is required to made on “price” of the goods and subsequent to 1/4/2008 it was amended and according to which 10% reversal was to be made on the “value” of the exempted goods. It was also clarified that value which is determined as per Section 4 or 4(A) of Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Rule made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uct, they had debited 10% of the contract price of the goods (excluding tax) under the provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) of CCR, 2004. They had also collected the said amount from their customer. In the show cause notice, it was alleged by the department that extra charges of 10 % recovered from the customer had increased price of exempted final product and the appellant were required to pay an amount of 10% of the total price including amount of 10%. Accordingly it was proposed to recover an amount ₹ 2,96,640/- being difference between amount equal to 10% of the total price of exempted product (inclusive of 10%) and amount actually debited by the appellant. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand alongwith recovery of interest a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents, he referred the price which is fixed under the contract and said price is inclusive of 10% reversal under Rule 6(3)(b) and the same contract also has terms which also shows that the reversal of Cenvat on exempted goods shall be paid towards said reversal against documentary evidence. As per this terms of contract, the price is not inclusive of the reversal amount therefore the basic price for which contract was made, alone will be considered as price for calculating 10% reversal under Rule 6(3)(b). He draws my attention to the relevant Rule 6(3)(b) and Board Circular No. 870/08/08-CX dated 16/5/2008 wherein under para 3, the board has clarified that prior to 1/4/2008 the 10% was required to be paid on the price of the exempted g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e their letter dated 8/10/2004. The said exemption certificate bearing number of purchase order under which, clause of 10% reversal and reimbursement thereby has been mentioned. He also submits that in the monthly returns they have explicitly declared the clearances of goods under this particular notification 10/97-CE. Even the show cause notice also issued on the basis of purchase order that the said purchase order bearing clause of 10% reversal and collection of the same from the customer. In view of these facts, entire information related to removal of this goods under exemption, submission of exemption certificate, reversal of 10% price of the exempted goods, collection of said amount from the customer stand disclosed to the department. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the price and the same should be taken for calculation of 10% reversal required under 6(3)(b). As regard the 10% reversal made by the appellant and even though the same was collected from the customer the same was not retained by the appellant as the same was debited in their Cenvat credit account, therefore in this fact, it could not be said that 10 % reversal is part and parcel of the price of the goods. I have gone through the Rule 6(3)(b) and amendment thereon w.e.f. 1/4/2008 and subsequently clarification issued by the Board vide circular dated 16/5/2008, relevant portion of clarification is reproduced below: The matter has been examined. Sub-rule (3) of rule 6 of the?3. CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has been amended w.e.f. 1-4-200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that 10% reversal of basic price and collection of the same from the customer are identical fact of the present case. In the case of Unison Metals Ltd. (supra) after having similar fact no dispute was raised on the price of the exempted goods on which 10% reversal required to be made under Rule 6(3)(b). Therefore I am of the view that the judgment of larger bench also supports the case of the appellant. I am deciding the matter on merit of the issue involved; hence, I am not going into the issue of time bar. In view of my above discussion, I am of the view that the appellant have correctly debited the liability of 10% amount under Rule 6(3)(b), therefore no further demand should have been confirmed. The impugned order is set aside and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
