9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... input services used for dutiable goods. Re-credit of amount - Held that: - The genesis of this SCN is that pending the investigation in SCN dt. 06.09.2005, the appellants had voluntarily debited ₹ 9,37,988/-. Later on they took back the credit of 9,15,714/- as they felt that they were entitled for the input service credit. Since, the dropping of proceedings pertaining to SCN dt. 06.09.2005 is u[pheld, the issue relating to re-credit of ₹ 9,15,714/- raised in the SCN dt. 07.04.2006 also does not survive. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/1163/2008 & E/1229/2008 - Final Order No. 60642-60643/2017 - Dated:- 18-10-2016 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missible Cenvat Credit of Service Tax to the tune of ₹ 9,38,538.00/- in the first show cause notice and ₹ 31,79,086.00/- in the show cause dt. 03.03.2006. 3. The common allegation in the show cause notices is that the above services were not covered under Rule 6(5) of CCR and the appellants were required to maintain separate records for receipt, consumption and inventory of input services meant for use in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted final products. Since they did not maintain separate records, they should pay amount @ 10% exempted category of goods w.e.f. 10.09.2004, the date from which credit on the Service Tax on input services was introduced. Accordingly, demand of ₹ 1,44,52,823/- was raised in show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ercises the option of availing input services credit for manufacture of excisable and exempted goods, subsequently, reversal of the credit paid by the party defeats the purpose of Rules 6(3)(b). In such a situation, the only option is to pay an amount equal to 10% of the duty. He referred to the Board Circular dt. 19.08.2002. 6. The Ld. Advocate reiterated the findings in the orders passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that both the orders in appeal were legal and proper. 7. Heard both the sides and examined the records. 8. We find that the view taken by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in both the orders can be summarized in the following manner:- (i) In appeal No. E/1163/2008, the Ld. Commissioner (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find any infirmity in the methodology adopted by the Commissioner to satisfy about the input services used for dutiable goods. As for the reversal of remaining amount of credit in category (iii), this Tribunal in a number of cases has held that when the appellant has already reversed the Cenvat Credit on input/input services attributable to final exempted goods, they are not required to pay 10% of value of exempted goods. One such case is Saint-Gobain Gyproc India Ltd., MR. A.K. Bansal, Dy. Manager Vs. CCE, Rohtak, Final Order No. 60162-60163/2017 dt. 18.01.2017 in Appeal NOs. E/2854 2871/2009. 10. In so far as the show cause notice dt. 07.04.2006 is concerned the same pertains to re-credit of an amount of ₹ 9,15,794/-. The ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
