9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugopal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri C. Mallikharjun Reddy, Superintendent/AR for the respondent ORDER PER: MR. S.K. MOHANTY 1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant herein is engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs, falling under Chapters 28 & 29 of the First schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant avails CENVAT Credit of Central Excise d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the impugned order dated 21.09.2010, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that during the disputed period, the appellant had maintained adequate accounting records to demonstrate that common inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods. Thus, he submits that the provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CENVAT statute, demand of the amount in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) ibid is in confirmity with the Statutory Provisions and such demand cannot be set aside through the appeal proceedings. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. We find that the appellant's contention regarding reversal of proportionate CENVAT Credit on inputs used for manufacture of exempted final products was not speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r proper appreciation, as to whether, the requirement of erstwhile Rule 6(2) (effective upto February 2008) and the amended provisions incorporated thereafter under the CENVAT statute would be applicable and whether the subsequent amendment took place in the CENVAT statute consequent to the introduction of the Finance Act, 2010 would have any application for deciding the issue. However, we are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
