9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g upon percentage of the production of dutiable as well as exempted products - Admittedly, the adjudicating authority has not verified such maintaining of records, inasmuch as, he has denied the benefit in principle itself. As such, the matter needs to go back for verification of the appellants claim of availment of credit only in respect of inputs used for manufacture of dutiable products - matter on remand. CENVAT Credit - invoices issued by M/s Parle Biscuits Ltd. as ISD - Held that:- By merely doing the job work for M/s Parle, the appellant has not become a unit of M/s Parle Biscuits Ltd. In terms of Rule 7, an ISD is authorized to distribute the Cenvat credit of service tax only to its own unit and not to the job worker - a job worker is not entitled to avail the credit on the basis of input invoices issued by the principal manufacturer as ISD - the entire demand is within limitation and the same is upheld. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - APPEAL No. E/70148/2015-EX[DB] - A/72813/2018-EX[DB] - Dated:- 29-11-2018 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Sachin Chitnis, Advocate for Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- stands confirmed against them along with imposition of penalty of identical amount on the ground that they had availed the Cenvat credit on the basis of the invoices issued by M/s Parle Biscuits Ltd. in terms of Rule 7 of Cenvat credit Rules, which relates to the credit of duty paid on the advertisement charges by M/s Parle Biscuits Ltd. who have considered themselves as an ISD and have issued invoices in question. The said order of Commissioner is impugned before us. 5. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Learned Advocate Shri Sachin Chitnis appearing for the appellant and Learned A.R. Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Supdt appearing for the respondent, we find that the appellants have taken a categorical stand before the adjudicating authority that they had only availed the Cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs which have gone into the manufacture of dutiable goods and as regards the raw material used for exempted goods, no Cenvat credit stands availed by them. This amounts to a situation as if two separate records were being maintained by them in terms of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules. The credit availed by them was on proportionate basis which was being taken on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntum of credit not availed or forgone which they claim was the credit on input used in the manufacture of exempted goods. 58. I observe that the condition to maintain separate accounts of receipt, consumption and inventory is a strict obligation, and no leniency can be allowed on account of conditions/procedure laid down in law, and failure to comply would attract recovery and penal provision as prescribed. The words used in the rules are the manufacturer or provider of output service shall maintain separate accounts for receipt, consumption and inventory of input and input services meant for use in the manufacture of dutiable final products or in providing output services and quantity of input meant for use in the manufacture of exempted goods or service. Thus, it is a strict liability of the manufacturer and burden to prove also lies upon them that they fully discharged their liability. 59. In my opinion in the instant case, the party was not maintaining separate records as envisaged in the Rule 6 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2005, for inputs used in the exempted final products as well as in the dutiable final products. Rather, they took credit of a certain amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of dutiable products and no credit is being taken on the inputs used for exempted final product, such legislative intent gets satisfied and the provisions of Rule 6 which disallow taking of such credit gets fully complied with. As such, simple non-maintenance of accounts in respect of both the types of final products and the use of the raw materials in the manufacture of the same, cannot be adopted as a ground or a reason for denial of the benefit which is otherwise available and which an assessee has satisfied. Reading of the reasoning of adjudicating authority leads us to observe that the demand in terms of Rule 6 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, stands raised and confirmed by him only on the short ground that a separate account in terms of Rule 6 (2) was not maintained by them without appreciating the fact that the appellant had not taken the credit in respect of the inputs used in exempted products and has maintained only the Cenvat credit account in respect of the inputs used for dutiable products. As such, we do not find favour with the findings arrived at by the adjudicating authority. 8. However, the fact is that the inputs were common for both the types of products and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
