9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the definition of the ‘exempted goods’ prescribed at Rule 2(d) of the said CCR Rules,2004 and the said provisions it cannot be said that LPG exempted or chargeable to NIL rate of duty are not required to reverse proportionate CENVAT credit on the inputs attributable to the exempted product. In the present case, the appellant are well aware of the quantum of CENVAT credit on inputs and input services used in our in relation of LPG used for domestic purpose and accordingly reversed the same periodically as per the said Rules - refund not allowed - appeal rejected - decided against appellant-assessee. - E/1560/2010 - A/11168/2016 - Dated:- 18-10-2016 - Dr. D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial) For Appellant (s) : Shri P. K. Shetty, Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2008 (223) E.L.T. 0149 (Raj.), ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court reported as 2014 (303) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.), the appellant are not required to reverse the credit on the inputs contained in the LPG cleared for domestic consumption by availing benefit of Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. 4. Per contra, the Ld. AR for Revenue submits that the principle laid down in Hindustan Zinc Ltd., is not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as, in the said case, the issue involved was whether the by-product which emerges during the course of manufacture of finished goods, attracts 8% of the value of the by-product or otherwise under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R, 2004, applies only to goods which are absolutely exempted from payment of duty and not to those goods, which are exempted on fulfilment certains conditions, like the present Notification No. 4/2006 dated 01.03.2006. In support, they have referred to the judgement of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in Hindustan Zinc Ltd s case (supra). In my view, the contention of the appellant cannot be acceptable as there is a specific mention of reversal of CENVAT credit attributable to inputs and input services under Rule 6 (3)(a)(viii) of CCR, 2004 where the Appellants fail to maintain separate records. Reading the definition of the exempted goods prescribed at Rule 2(d) of the said CCR Rules,2004 and the said provisions it cannot be said th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
