2016 (3) TMI 1143

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ame cannot be withdrawn, that means when the asssesse has availed option for payment of proportionate credit as provided under Rule, they are not allowed to change the option and claim that they want to pay 5%/10% of value of the exempted goods, therefore the refund of differential duty is not admissible - Appeal dismissed.
Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri. Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. Ajay Kumar, Joint Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent Order This appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. PII/VM/341/2010 dated 8/12/2010 dated 8/12/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Pune-III, whereby Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the Order-in-Original No. 62/CEX/2009 dated 16/7/2010, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3. Shri. Rajesh Ostwal, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 there are two option available i.e. (1) reversal of credit on proportionate basis that is Rule 6(3) (ii) and (2) payment of 5%/10% value of the exempted goods in terms of Rule 6(3)(i). It is upto the appellant to avail the option, accordingly though the appellant paid proportionate credit but they were entitle to pay 5%/10% of the value of the exempted goods accordingly there is excess payment. Since the appellant is claiming option of Rule 6(3)(i) that is to be extended and the excess amount paid by the appellant should be refunded. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on Gamma Rays Transmission Ltd Vs. Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... they want to pay 5%/10% of value of the exempted goods, therefore the refund of differential duty is not admissible. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has given categorical findings which is reproduced below: 6. Further, in the instant case, I find that during the period April 2009 to September, 2009 the appellant on their own reversed an amount equivalent to the Cenvat credit attributable to the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the exempted goods which was of course in consonance with the provisions of Rule 6(3)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit and the same was correct as per the law. The very fact that the appellant reversed on amount equivalent to the Cenvat credit attributable to inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X