9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r entry due to the reason that at times the input which was issued for exempted goods from their Form-IV register, subsequently because of the use in the dutiable goods, transfer to the accounts of dutiable goods i.e. Part-I and similarly, the transfer entry was made for vice-versa. Due to this transfer entry, the Adjudicating Authority cannot say that they are not maintaining separate accounts. It is clear that the appellant have not taken or reversed the Cenvat credit in respect of input and input service. The Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,98,42,913/- in terms of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In case of demand under Rule 6(3) for the amount 5%/ 10%, is made the appellant became entitle to take credit i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used in the manufacture of exempted goods for which separate accounts are maintained in the Form-IV register. At times it happens that the inputs which were intended to be used in the manufacture of exempted goods, after issuing the same, the same was used in the dutiable goods therefore, they have transferred the stock from exempted goods to dutiable goods and have done the same exercise vice-versa. As regards the credit of input service, the appellant have availed common inputs service which were used in dutiable and exempted goods however, at the end of the month they have reversed the proportionate credit. Thus, the appellant's claim is that they have not availed Cenvat credit on input and input service attributed to the exempted goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it, the demand of Rs. 1,98,42,913/- is not sustainable. He submits that this clearly shows that appellant has not availed Cenvat credit on the inputs/ input service. Therefore the demand raised by the Adjudicating Authority is not sustainable. 3. Shri Dinesh M. Prithiani, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record. We find that the limited issue to be decided is that whether in the facts of the case, as per claim of the appellant that they have not taken credit in respect of inputs and reversed the credit in respect of input service attributed to exempted goods, whether the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsal of credit of input service. In this regard, a chart submitted by the appellant is reproduced below:- 5. From the above chart, it is clear that the appellant have not taken or reversed the Cenvat credit in respect of input and input service. The Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,98,42,913/- in terms of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In case of demand under Rule 6(3) for the amount 5%/ 10%, is made the appellant became entitle to take credit in respect of all inputs and input service irrespective of the use of the same either in the dutiable or exempted goods. Therefore, if the appellant have already reversed/ not taken credit of Rs. 2,27,92,622/- then the demand of Rs. 1,98,42,913/- which is lesser than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
