9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1985. The appellants are also availing the CENVAT credit on Central Excise duty paid on input service, imports and capital goods in terms of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. During scrutiny of records for the period from April, 2012 to March 2013 the appellants were observed to have availed the CENVAT Credit of duty paid on inputs, input service i.e. with respect to service tax paid on GTA Coal Cargo handling service on coal, security service, repairing and maintenance service, manpower recruitment service etc. and had also availed the CENVAT Credit on import such as coal used for generation of electricity which is not leviable to duty of excise (exempted). Electricity so generated was being sold outside the factory gate also to the customers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was allowed by way of remand vide the Final order No. A-51845/2018 dated 14.5.2018 directing the adjudicating authority for denovo re-computation of the amount as formula in computation was disputed by the appellant. Pursuant to the said directions that the demand in question was still confirmed by the Original Adjudicating Authority vide Order No. 080/19 dated 30.5.2019. The appeal thereof has been rejected vide the order under challenged still being aggrieved, appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Shri Ankur Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Ravi Kapoor, learned Authorised Representative for the Department. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the impugned show cause notice has been issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and it has rightly been held that the provisions of Rule 6(2) of Rule 6(3) (i) have not properly been followed. The amount demanded has duly been calculated as per appellants own option to calculate the same under Rule 6(3A) OF CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Hence, there is no infirmity. Order under challenge is impressed upon as reasonable and correct. Appeal is accordingly, prayed to be dismissed. 6. After hearing both the parties and perusing the entire records, I observe and hold as follows: Following are the admitted facts in the present case (i) The appellant is manufacturing sponge iron as its final product. The power generation plant is installed by the appellant for captive consumption of the power gen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity so generated by the appellant has being used captively as well as sold to other buyers and on such sales no duty was paid by the noticee because of the aforeobserved exemption for generation of electricity. The availment of CENVAT Credit on the inputs / input services used by the appellant definitely shall be governed by Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 9. Since the separate account was not maintained by the appellant under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 will be applicable in terms whereof either 5% of the value of exempted goods and exempted service was to be paid or such an amount as is calculated in terms of Rule 6(3A)( c) (i) with respect to calculating amount of CENVAT Credit on imports used in or in relation to manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be calculated by the formula M/NxP where M is the value of the goods manufactured and removed during the financial year, and N denotes the given total and exempted goods manufactured and removed during the financial year. And P denotes the total CENVAT Credit taken on the input service during the financial year. 12. From the above observations, I am of the opinion that the value should be excluded both from the numerator i.e. ' M' and and denominator i.e. 'N'. The Commissioner (Appeals) while not excluding the same, was of the view that the words used in Rule 6(3A) are "Total CENVAT Credit taken" and used the entire CENVAT Credit including those CENVAT Credit on inputs and input services used exclusively in dutiable goods were also incl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r challenge is perused (in para 18.3 of show cause notice), I observe that the value of coal (inputs ) used in power plant and value of Coal handling service (input service) in terms of Rule 6(3A)(c ) (i) and 6 (3A(iii) has to be the value as shown in Column 4 of such table in para 18.3 of the show cause notice. However, the value of total inputs / input service as mentioned in para 1 of the said table has been taken by the Investigating Authority and has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 14. In view of the above discussion, the calculation based upon total value of input / input service is held to be wrong. The above framed question remains answered accordingly. Commissioner (Appeals) had to take the value of coal and coal han ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
