9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant had not maintained separate accounts of raw materials used for dutiable and exempted finished goods and not followed the procedure under Rule 6 (3) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. A Show Cause Notice Dated 26.05.2006 was issued proposing to recover an amount of Rs. 25,71,510.00, which is 8%/10% assessable value of clearance of the exempted finished goods, during the period from 01.04.2001 to 28.02.2006 in terms of Rule 6 (3) (b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/2004. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of an amount of Rs. 25,71,510.00 alongwith interest and imposed penalty and also appropriated the amount of Rs. 10,57,927.00 as paid by the appellant. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... additional option was to reverse the proportionate cenvat credit attributable to input/input services used in or in relation to manufacture of exempted final product. The proportionate amount of cenvat credit attributable to the input/input services used in or in relation to manufacture of exempted final product was to be calculated as per the formula prescribed in Rule 6(3A). By Finance Act, 2010, the above provisions were made retrospectively applicable. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Sh. Rama Multitech Ltd. vs UOI reported in 2011 (267) ELT 153 Guj has held that even if a separate account have not been maintained, in view of retrospective amendment by Finance Act, 2010, a manufacturer using common inputs in or in relation to m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he proportionate cenvat credit attributable to the quantum of input services used in or in relation to manufacture of exempted final product and by foregoing this credit, they have complied with this obligation. In view of this the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed." 4. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue raised the minor discrepancies on the reversal of the credit with the statement submitted by the appellant. In our considered view, the Adjudicating Authority should examine the reversal of credit. 5. In view of the above discussions, we allow the appeal filed by the appellant, subject to, the Adjudicating Authority shall verify the reversal of credit, in accordance with law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
