9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laced in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur [1995 (12) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - appeal dismissed - decided in favor of assessee. - E/2286/2010-SM - A/30388/2017 - Dated:- 13-3-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S. Member (Judicial) Shri P.S. Reddy, Asst. Commissioner (AR) for the Appellant Shri P. Dwarakanath, Consultant for the Respondent ORDER [ Order Per Sulekha Beevi, C. S. ] The above appeal is filed by the Department against the order passed by Commissioner(Appeals) who set aside the demand, interest and penalty. 2. The brief facts are that the respondents are manufacturers of sugar confectionary not containing cocoa and sugar confectionary containing cocoa and also fruit jui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion. That Commissioner(Appeals) has erred in holding that such reversal of credit was sufficient compliance of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. That since the respondents have not maintained separate accounts, they are liable to pay 10% of the value of the clearances of exempted products during the relevant period. 4. Against this, the learned consultant Shri P. Dwarakanath submitted that the period involved is after 01/03/2008. W.e.f. 01/03/2008, Section 6(3A) was introduced whereby an option was given to the manufacturer who was using common inputs / input services to reverse proportionate credit which was used for manufacture of exempted products. The Department has taken the view that as the respondent has not maintained sepa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed as under:- 4. The Tribunal found that there was no dispute that Vanadium Penta-oxide were liable to reverse the credit of ₹ 76,000/- taken on the said inputs used in the exempted finished goods, which they reversed and informed the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal however did not accept the contention of the department that the Company did not follow the procedure under Rule 6(3)(b) in respect of reversal of credit, and relying upon ETA Technology Ltd v. CCE, Bangalore [2007 (6) 371 (Tribunal)], and the decision of Supreme Court in Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd v. Commissioner [1996 (81) 3 (S.C.)] , allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5 . In Chandrapur Magnet (supra), it was held by the Supreme Court that whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
