9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N N Prabhudesai, Superintendent (AR) for the respondent Order Appellant, M/s Electrocraft (India) Pvt Ltd , manufactures electric motors and pats thereof and laboratory equipment and parts thereof some of which are supplied to research institutes entitled to duty exemption under notification 10/97-CE dated 1 st March 1997. 2. Allegation against appellant, who were mot maintaining separate account of inputs used for both excisable and exempt goods and, instead of complying with CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 requiring payment of 8% of value of exempted goods at the time of clearance, reversed, at the end of each year, the credit availed on inputs in such proportion as the output of exempt goods bore to total output. An amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ative relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Mackinon Mackeenzie Ltd v. Mackinnon Employees Union [Final order dated 25 th February 2015 in Civil Appeal no. 5319 of 2008] which cited the observation in another judgement of the Court in Babu Verghese Ors v. Bar Council of Kerala Ors, viz., 31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any Statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor vs. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch.D 426 which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad vs. King Emperor 63 Indian Appeals 372=AIR 1936 PC 253 who stated as under: Where a power is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liance with an alternative provision is not tenable. This contention cannot but be accepted. 7. However, he is in error in assuming that the appellant pleads for regularization by setting the clock back, in a manner of speaking, and seeking approval of reversal of credit already taken. Indeed, Learned Counsel points out that in re DCW Ltd, the Tribunal has interpreted the distinction between the application of the rule when inputs are common to one set of products that are dutiable and another set that are exempted which deems a point of no return upon taking credit with deliberate intent despite being aware of the dichotomous utilisation of the common input and full awareness that rule 6 (3) (b) is the only available channel. Here t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
