9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thikeyan, Member (T) S/Shri Savith V. Gopal and K.S. Venkatagiri, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri N.J. Kumaresh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - A common issue is involved in these appeals. M/s. Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (MMPL, for short) were asked to pay an amount of Rs. 1,27,16,888/- under Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, being 10% of the total price (excluding taxes) of the exempted final products cleared from their factory during the period 16-5-2005 to 31-3- 2006. During the said period, they had also cleared other products on payment of duty. However, separate accounts were not maintained in respect of Furnace Oil (fuel), a common input used in the manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The counsel for the appellants submit that the impugned demands are liable to be set aside inasmuch as the entire credit (credit taken on common input in one case and credit taken on common input service in the other) stands reversed. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Bench in Pepsico Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry [2008 (230) E.L.T. 126 (Tribunal) = 2008-TIOL-59-CESTAT-MAD] as also on the following decisions of co-ordinate Benches :- (i) Final Order No. A/2211/WZB/AHD/2007 dated 29-8-2007 in Appeal No. E/2982/2003 [ Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat -I v. Gujarat Guardian Ltd. - 2007 (220) E.L.T. 270 (Tribunal)] (ii) Final Order No. 588/2007 dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Union of India [2004 (174) E.L.T. 422 (All.)] and held that the demand under Rule 6(3)(b) was not sustainable inasmuch as the credit in question had been reversed, it appears, the case law cited before us today by the learned counsel was not available to the learned Commissioner in the present cases and that the apex Court's decision in Chandrapur Magnet Wires (supra) was distinguished. 5. In the case of M/s. RSIL, we find that input service tax credit of Rs. 3.91 lakhs had been taken by them on services received prior to 1-3-2005, during which period their entire production was cleared on payment of duty only. Prima facie, this credit was admissible to them. Credit of Rs. 3.62 lakhs had been taken on a variety of input servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
