9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n limitation, the appeal fails. As regards computation of the demand on duty which has been confirmed by the adjudicating authority as 13, 62,622 which has been partly paid, the adjudicating authority should reconsider the computation based upon the explanation Rule 6(3D)(C) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, in its correct perspective and arrive at the exact amount that needs to be reversed by the appellant. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/20503/2016 - Final Order No. 22204/ 2017 - Dated:- 22-9-2017 - Shri M. V. Ravindran, Judicial Member Shri Kaushik, Adv. For the Appellant Shri Pakshi Rajan, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : M. V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original Nos. CAL-EX ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requires to be reversed, if computed as per explanation to Rule 6 (3D)(C) of Cenvat Credit 2004 would be approximately ₹ 5,04,625 which has been reversed by them though they have to reverse only an amount of ₹ 3,78,882 as per the CA certificate. On limitation, it is his argument that the fact of trading activity being in the knowledge of the department, they should have sought the explanation from the appellant at the time when returns were filed and indicated the details. He has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.; 2017 (50) S.T.R. 299 (Tri. Del.) for the proposition that the formula which is inserted in statute from 01.04.2011 will also apply to period prior in respect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been identified as an exempted activity only from 01.04.2017? * Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in giving effect to the amendment introduced to the definition of exempted service for the period prior to 01.04.2017? * Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that only the input services used directly or indirectly or in or in relation to the manufacture of taxable goods alone is eligible for credit in terms of Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? * Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in quantifying the demand in a method which is not prescribed either in the Act or in the Rules? 9. After ana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of this on the question of merits as also on limitation, the appeal fails. 11. As regards computation of the demand on duty which has been confirmed by the adjudicating authority as 13, 62,622 which has been partly paid, in my view, the adjudicating authority should reconsider the computation based upon the explanation Rule 6(3D)(C) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, in its correct perspective and arrive at the exact amount that needs to be reversed by the appellant, to that extent for limited purpose of quantifying the correct amount that needs to be reversed by the appellant, the matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority. Adjudicating authority will also consider the interest liability and the quantum of penalty to be impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
