2018 (3) TMI 100

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - Held that: - No attempt has been made in the SCN to isolate the value of the service on which alone liability under rule 6(3) (i) of CCR 2004 could be applied - It is certainly not the intention of the provision of law to recover an amount of ₹ 4,01,224/- when the benefit derived is limited to ₹ 5,551/- and which was already reversed by the appellant on 26th March 2014. It is now .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n availed of in CENVAT credit account. 2. According to the jurisdictional authorities, appellant was liable to make payments in accordance with rule 6(3)(i) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as they did not maintain separate account for inputs used in trading activity as well as in manufacturing activity. 3. None appeared for appellant and the written submission filed on their behalf is taken on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... NVAT credit attributable to exempt activity is ₹ 5,551/- for the year 2010-11 which is not in dispute. It is certainly not the intention of the provision of law to recover an amount of ₹ 4,01,224/- when the benefit derived is limited to ₹ 5,551/- and which was already reversed by the appellant on 26 th March 2014. It is now settled law that reversal of CENVAT credit is no differ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X