9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alleged that since separate records were not maintained, they were required to pay 10% of the price of the exempted goods - the Appellants had availed CENVAT Credit of inputs which were used in or in relation to manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods; during the course of audit, it was alleged that since separate records were not maintained, they were required to pay 10% of the price of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at reasonable opportunity of hearing be granted to the Appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. E/286/2009-SM - Order No. A/11054/2016 - Dated:- 29-9-2016 - Dr. D. M. Misra, Member ( Judicial ) For Appellant: Shri P. G. Mehta, Advocate For Respondent: Shri G.P. Thomas, A.R. ORDER Per Dr. D. M. Misra Heard both sides. 2. This appeal is filed against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 4,61,000/- and later on realizing their mistake that as per Rule 6(3)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, reversal of proportionate CENVAT Credit on the inputs attributable to the exempted products was allowed, and they were required to reverse credit of only ₹ 29,668/-, they filed the refund claim for the balance amount of ₹ 4,31,400/- on 14.05.2008. A show cause demand notice was is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w have not considered the said argument while rejecting their refund claim. He further submits that by virtue of the amendment to the relevant rules in the Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect proportionate credit availed on inputs attributable to exempted products was allowed to be reversed. 5. The learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue does not dispute the said facts. Howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
