9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue with any tangible evidence, moreover, the Ld. Commissioner (A) has held that during the proceedings have observed that the respondent is not availing the cenvat credit on furnace oil used in manufacture of final exempted product as per the formula and dropped the proceedings. In that circumstance, reliance placed on the decision of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. [2009 (8) TMI 892 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] where it was held that no credit stand taken in respect of that part of dutiable furnace oil which has been used in the manufacture of exempted products. The demand at the rate of 10% of value of such exempted products is not called for. Demand not sustainable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/969/2009-Ex(DB) - FINAL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the said order, the Revenue is before us. 3. The Ld. AR supported the grounds of the appeal and submits that IV. The Commissioner in his observation while dropping the demand has held that notice had tried to not avail any credit on that much quantity of input is used in the manufacture of exempted goods, although the quantity could not be factually recorded on day to month, on the basis of a self devised formula, which they had already disclosed to the department. The Commissioner also did not consider the records maintained by them as separate record under the provision of Rule 6(2), as they had maintained the records on their own on the basis of formula devised by them which did not fulfil the statutory requirements of Rule 6( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (A) has relied on the decision of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. V, CCE, 1996 (81) ELT 3(SC). He submits that the respondent has complied with the provisions of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, therefore, the respondent is not required to pay 10% of the value of exempted goods. He further submits that the respondent is not covered under Rule 6 of CCR as the respondent is not taking cenvat credit on furnace oil which is used in the manufacture of exempted product. In that circumstances, the impugned order is to be upheld. 6. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 7. In this case, the contention of the respondent throughout the investigation is that they are not availing cenvat credit on furnace oi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) Ltd. reported in 2008 (232) ELT 37 (Tri.LB) - 2008-TIOL-1877-CESTAT-Mumbai (L.B.) is to the effect that even the entire credit is taken, it is sufficient if at the time of removal of the exempted products, proportionate input credit is reversed. In any case, the credit availed is only to the extent for which they are eligible and as such there was not justification for invoking Rule 6(3)(b). 3. We agree with the above contention of the Ld. Advocate. In view of the clear findings of the original adjudicating authority in para 21 of the order, that no credit stand taken in respect of that part of dutiable furnace oil which has been used in the manufacture of exempted products. The demand at the rate of 10% of value of such exempted pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
