9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g financial year on provisional basis and the same was adjusted by the appellant on the basis of final ratio by 30th June of the next financial year. On going through the said pre-show cause notice consultation letter and dropping proceeding against the appellant, it is clear that the appellant is reversing proportionate cenvat credit, as per Rule 6(3)(a) therefore appellant is not required to pay 6% of the value of Honey cleared by them. The provisions of rule 6 are not applicable to the facts of this case as Honey is not an exempted goods - the proceedings against the appellant are not sustainable under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The impugned orders deserve no merits, accordingly the same are set aside - Appeal allowed. - SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri B.L. Narasimhan Shri Shri Rahul Tangri, both Advocates Ms. Payal Bharwani, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant (s) Shri P.K.Ghosh, Authorized Representative for the Revenue ORDER Both the appeals are having common issue therefore both are decided by a common order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant are hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ratio of taxable turnover to total turnover during the preceding financial year, on provisional basis. Such availment by the appellant was adjusted basis the final ratio of taxable turnover to total turnover of the financial year, by 30th June of the next financial year. The appellant availed the total credit on advertisement and other services during the period March 2011 to July 2014 of Rs.2,51,95,770/- and during the period from August 2014 to June 2015 Rs.98,55,743/-. Despite following the methodology of availing credit pertaining only to dutiable turnover of the appellant, the revenue issued two show cause notices proposing to recover 6% of the value of honey treating it an exempted goods cleared by the appellant during the impugned period under Rule 6(3)(i) of the CCR, 2004. The appellant contested the issue, but by way of the impugned orders, the demand was confirmed. Against the said orders, the appellant is in appeal before us. 5. The appellant submits that the issue is no more res integra since the demand in respect of the subsequent period has already been dropped by the adjudicating authority. 6. He further submitted that rule 6 of the CCR, 2004 is not invocable i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot imposable. 9. On the other hand, the Ld.AR for the department reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 10. Heard the parties, considered the submissions. 11. The facts are not disputed by either of the sides that the appellant is manufacturing Glucose and Honey/Madhu whereas Glucose is dutiable and Honey although excisable, but no rate of duty is mentioned in the tariff. Further, for the period up to 31st March 2014, the ISD was not disputing the advertisement services pertaining to the Honey, but for the advertisement services, they are disputing the credit pertaining to Glucose which is dutiable. As regards credit of other services ISD applied provisions of rule 6(3)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and apportioned the remaining credit in production value ratio of all the units and such apportionment, only so much credit as proportionate to the taxable turnover of all the units was distributed by the ISD. The credit was not distributed by ISD was reversed at its end. For period post 01.04.2014 except the credit pertained to trading activity, the ISD distributed the entire credit among all the units in their production value ratio and thereafter the appellant the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pad Shulk Bhawan, 180, Rajdanga Main Road, Shantipally, Kolkata- 700107. Yours sincerely, (Vevekanand Maurya) Assistant Commissioner(Adjudication), Central Excise, HQRS, Kolkata-V Commissionerate GOVERNMENT OF INDIA KOLKATA SOUTH CGST CX : KOLKATA GST BHAVAN : 180, RAJANGA MAIN ROAD, : SHANTIPALLY: KOLKATA-700107 C.No.V(15)19/Adjn/CE/Dabur/Kol-V/17-18/3482 Date: 03.8.17 To The Assistant Commissioner, CGST CX, Division Bishnupur, Kolkata-South Commissionerate Sir, Sub: Draft Statement 2.4.5. M/s. Dabur India Ltd. for the period 07/2005 t0 01/2017 proposing demand of Rs.7,94,15,487/- - reg. Please refer to your office letter C.No.V(15)09/Adjn/Dabur/CE/BPD/Kol- V/17/18/894 dated 29.05.2017 wherein a Draft Statement of Demand w.r.t. M/s. Dabur India Ltd. for the period 07/2015 to 01/2017 for a demand of Rs.7,94,15,487/- was proposed. 2. In this context, it is informed that as per the opinion of the competent authority, since the assessee has begun following the procedure as prescribed under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the proposed draft statement on the basis of CERA Objection does not appear to hold meri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
