9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the respondent is not maintaining separate records in respect of receipt, Consumption and inventory of Furnace oil used in the manufacture of dutiable final products and exempted final products i.e. Maaza as per Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent, as the Respondent has not maintained separate records for used of furnace oil utilized in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods, therefore, as per Rule 6(3)(b) of the Credit Rules, the respondent is required to pay 10% of the total price of the exempted goods clear by them. The show cause notice was adjudicated and the Ld. Commissioner hold that as the appellant is not availing the cenvat credit of furnace oil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al product at the end of the month. The said quantity has been determined on the basis of a formula. The respondent has already been submitted the said formula to the department on 14.09.2006. It is his submissions that the Revenue has misinterpreted the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Credit Rules. As the provision provides for payment of 10% of the exempted goods in case where the assessee opts to avail the cenvat credit on inputs and opts not to maintain separate accounts. It is his submissions that the specific records were maintained and the respondent only availed credit on the furnace oil that was used in the manufacture of dutiable goods based on a specific formula. 5. The Ld. Commissioner (A) has held that though the respondent is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stands drawn to the findings of the adjudicating authority, which are to the effect that the notice had taken proportionate Cenvat Credit on that quantity of input which is used in the manufacture of dutiable goods only. However, the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand on the sole ground that separate accounts have not been maintained by the appellant. it is the contention of the Id. Advocate that on that face of clear findings that the credit was availed used in the manufacture of dutiable goods and no credit was availed in respect of that part of the furnace oil which was used in the manufacture of exempted goods, the demand of an amount equivalent to 10% of exempted final product is not justified on the sole ground that sepa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
