9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provision for payment of 6% of the value of the goods on the difference of sale and purchase price of the goods traded or 10% of the cost of the goods sold, whichever is more, remained in existence w.e.f. 1st April, 2011 - the Adjudicating Authority or the Commissioner (Appeals) were not right in holding that the said provision had come into effect from 1st July, 2012 and thus, disallowing the benefit thereunder to the respondent - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Central Excise Appeal No. 280 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 6-7-2017 - Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal And Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, JJ. For the Appellant : S.S.C., Parv Agarwal For the Respondent : Nishant Mishra, Kartikya Narain ORDER Heard Sri Parv Ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the above period on common input services be not disallowed and recovered. The respondent agreed to reverse the proportionate amount of CENVAT Credit availed for the period beginning from 01.04.2011 amounting to ₹ 5,16,308/-. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of the entire amount. The appeal was also dismissed but the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 10.02.2016 permitted reversal of ₹ 5,16,308/- being the proportionate CENVAT Credit availed on 10% of trading turnover. Admittedly, in the present case, the respondent was not maintaining separate books of accounts in respect of common input services and as such, was liable for payment of the amount in accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules. The Rule 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be remanded inasmuch as calculation of 6% of the value of the goods or 10% of the cost of the goods sold is to be worked out. In this regard, we do not find any ground in the appeal or that any objection was taken to that effect before the Tribunal. The entire calculation in that regard was before it and appears to have been accepted. Accordingly, we do not find that the Tribunal has erred in accepting the calculation of the amount as submitted by the respondent, which was in accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules. Lastly, it has been argued that the Tribunal has illegally set aside the penalty order and that too without recording any reason. The reason for setting aside the penalty is implicit inasmuch as the Tribunal has accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
