9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts own. The latter is unambiguously clear in conferring the privilege of exercising of option to the assessee. It was, therefore, not appropriate for the adjudicating authority to resort to computation that yielded higher revenue. It would be appropriate for the adjudicating authority to consider the matters afresh after giving an opportunity to the appellant to furnish the computation preferred by them but strictly in accordance with the provisions of rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The claim of Learned Senior Counsel that the plants should be deemed as separate registrations is not acceptable in law. The appellant is at liberty to raise the submissions pertaining to retrospective application of the revised computation methodology, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o of the plants, the bulk of manufacture was intended for supply to defence organisations and Indian Space Research Organisation, entitled to clearance without payment of duty in accordance with notification no. 10/97-CE dated 1st March 1997 or notification no. 64/95-CE dated 16th March 1995, and that the variegated products emanating from other plants with several combinations of 'inputs' and 'inputs services' warranted each plant to be considered as separate factories. 3. Learned Authorized Representative submits that the appellant has admitted to their inability to maintain separate accounts for consumption of common 'inputs' and 'inputs services' and, thereby, entirely within the ambit of the rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Central Excise v. Reliance Industries Ltd [2019-TIOL-1593-CESTAT-AHM]. He further submits, by placing reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in Mercedes Benz India (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I [2015 (40) STR 381 (T)], Aster Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad [2013 (43) STR 411 (T) and in that of Tirupati Tubes v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad [2015 (327) ELT 210 (T), that it is settled law that tax authorities cannot, even in adjudication proceedings, enforce an option upon an assessee and that non-compliance with procedure should not stand in the way of exercise of available options. He further buttressed the proposition that goods supplied to defence organizations and the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
