9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt for taking irregular credit for the period 2005 – 2010. But the ratios laid down in the above mentioned case were also not available before the adjudicating authority. When it is so, for verification of credit of CENVAT, the findings have not been adequately elucidated in the impugned order - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/MISC/27320/2013 in E/2618/2011-DB, E/865/2012-DB, E/Early Hearing/20804/2014, E/Early Hearing/30509/2016, E/Early Hearing/30510/2016 in E/2618/2011-DB And E/865/2012-DB - A/30296-30297/2017 - Dated:- 24-2-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Technical Member Shri V.M. Doiphode, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Guna Ranjan, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eard Shri V.M. Doiphode and Shri Guna Ranjan for the parties. 4. the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as regards furnace oil and input services, the Commissioner himself has accepted in the impugned order that proportionate credit has been reversed and therefore, according to him, they have fulfilled the legal obligation and on that account, demand for 5%/10% value of the SLICE cleared cannot be sustained. As regards plastic crates, he submits that the appellant had stock of more than 5 lakh plastic crates on which CENVAT credit has not been taken and during the period of dispute the appellant has purchased about 2.5 lakh crates. It is his submission that there was no requirement for maintaining separate account in respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Ltd. Vs. CC CE, Guntur [2009(236) ELT 195 (Tri.-Bang.)] and Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pondicherry [2007(214) ELT 248 (Tri.-Chennai)] to submit that when plastic crates are put into repeated use, there is no need to maintain separate accounts. He also submits that total credit taken on the new plastic crates received by them comes around ₹ 23.7 lakhs only during the 5 year period and on this ground the duty demand of more than ₹ 5.56 crores has been confirmed. At best, they can be asked to reverse credit taken by them proportionate to the clearance of SLICE which would come to only 15%. He also submits that there are several decisions to support the view that reversal of credit at a later date amount to n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sides and gone through the materials available before us. From the above, it appears that the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CCE Vs. Asian Fertilizers Ltd. [2015(332) ELT 666 (All.)] has allowed the appeal of the assessee be observing that assessee is not required to pay 8% of prince of exempted goods for not maintaining separate records as Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 is not applicable on reversal. Further, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE C Vs. Precot Meridian Ltd. [2015(325) ELT 234 (SC)] has observed that reversal of CENVAT / Modvat credit amount to non taking of CENVAT credit and therefore exemption subject to non-availment of CENVAT /modvat credit is available if credit after availment i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
