9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber (T) and P.K. Das, Member (J) [Order per: C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. - 1. The main dispute in all these appeals is the same. Therefore, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. M/s. Bharat Starch Industries are engaged in the manufacture of plain and modified starch, Corn Gluten, Esterified starch, Gum/P-gum, Glucose, Soap Stock, Maize Oil, Maize Oil cake and Maize Bran. All items other than plain maize starch and corn gluten are liable to excise duty and the appellant was clearing their produce accordingly. The assessee is eligible and has been availing of Cenvat credit also Under the impugned order, demand has been made in regard to goods cleared without payment of duty on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch etc), separate accounts and inventory etc. of all the inputs going into the production of dutiable and exempted products were kept. But no separate account was made in regard to lubricating oil and transformer oil. These oils are filled in the (machinery) capital goods used and Credit had been taken on them also. The amount of Credit taken was about Rs. 8 lacs. Revenue authorities took the view that the appellant had opted not to keep separate account of inputs (the aforesaid oils) used in the manufacture of both dutiable and exempted goods and, were, therefore, liable to pay 8% of the value of the exempted goods cleared. This has resulted in the demand of about Rs. 8 Crores, even though the disputed credit was only Rs. 8 lacs. The pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the opinion that these oils are also required to be allocated in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6, Revenue may make such allocation and demand Cenvat credit. The learned counsel would emphasis that in any event, demand under sub rule 3(b) at the rate of 8% cannot be made as that would be contrary to the facts of the case and provisions of the rule. Further, there would be no correlation between the benefit (Cenvat) derived by the manufacturer and the demand raised. 9. The learned D.R. would submit that the assessee's contention regarding impossibility of allocation is not correct as any cost of manufacture, direct or inputs indirect, is capable of allocation among the goods manufactured.. The learned DR would also emphasis that R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
