9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chennai-II Vs. Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2017 (9) TMI 1375 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has considered a similar issue and observed that when the credit has been reversed along with interest, there is no liability to pay up 10%, as demanded by the Department - demand cannot sustain - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/00310/2012 - F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used in the manufacture of both dutiable and exempted goods. They had not maintained separate accounts and Department was of the view that they are liable to pay 10% of the value of the exempted goods as per Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2005. Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to demand an amount of ₹ 27,64,960/- along with interest and also for imposing penalties. After due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de the demand. He relied upon the decision in the case of C.C.E. Salem Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. [2013 (294) E.L.T. 384 (Mad.)]. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The demand is raised alleging that the appellant has availed credit wrongly on common inputs for exempted as well as dutiable products. The appellant had not maintained separate accounts and the Department is of the view that they are li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
