9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant had been maintaining common Balance Sheet for its manufacturing as well as trading activities, despite the fact that Balance Sheet of the Company records the financial transactions including Profit Loss, Assets Liability of the entire Company and it has got nothing to do with availment of services which are recorded in the accounting package, as such, separately. The issue is no more res integra in view of consistent decisions of this Tribunal that has attained finality with the approval of various Appellate Courts that Rule 6(3)(i) ibid cannot be made automatically applicable on failure to intimate in writing about options to be availed by the assessee but here the facts are completely different in the sense that Appellant dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s warehouse located at Chakan where trading activities were undertaken and at Pimpri, located 15 Kms. away from Chakan, where manufacturing activities were undertaken. According to Appellant, it had claimed CENVAT Credit only on the duty paid on capital goods, inputs and Service Tax paid under Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for inputs used for manufacture of dutiable goods namely Hydraulic Pumps, Cylinders, Valves, Power Units, etc. but it had not availed any credit in respect of goods and services received at warehouse at Chakan. For the purpose of recording sale and purchase transaction in its ERP system in respect of manufacturing and trading activities undertaken in two different locations, Appellant had used two distinct codes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mercedes Benz India (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-I reported in 2015 (40) STR 381 (Tri-Mumbai), Sahar Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. CCE Cus. reported in 2018 (4) TMI 1330-CESTAT, Mumbai, Seth Construction Vs. CCGST, Mumbai (South) reported in 2018 (8) TMI 1399-CESTAT, Mumbai, Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai-II reported in 2020 (9) TMI 503-CESTAT Mumbai, Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai reported in 2018 (363) ELT 1050 (Tri-Mum), Alstom T D India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of GST Cex, Chennai reported in 2019 (370) ELT 625 (Tri-Chennai) that Revenue cannot insist for full payment of duty under Rule 3(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 only because of absence of prior intimation to the concerned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion under Rule 6(3)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and no such requirement for exercising any option for paying an amount in terms of Rule 6(3)(iii) was available in the statute itself, for which the order passed by the Commissioner is required to be set aside. 4. In response to such submissions, Learned Authorised Representative for the Respondent-Department, Shri P. K. Acharya, argued that the very fact of availing CENVAT Credit on common services is evident from the fact of reversal of CENVAT Credit attributable to exempt services by the Appellant after the same was pointed out by the Audit but after reversal since it had not exercised the option of proportionate reversal by intimating the Departmental Authority, the entire amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se to the Show-cause in the form of a reply dated 19.08.2013 and at subsequent stages wherein Appellant had clearly demonstrated that only in respect of purchase of services and goods for the manufacturing plant, CENVAT Credit was taken on inputs and input services and not in respect of trading operations at Pimpri, which is separately recorded in the respective sites in the Oracle software (para 2.5 2.6 at appeal memo page number 97). Further at page 99 of the appeal memo under para 3 Appellant has clearly noted that they are not going into the legality of the objection pointed out by the Audit Party during EA 2000 Audit and as an abundant precaution Appellant Company has reversed the Credit under Rule 6(3) to settle the issue concerning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ately. 6. At this point we intend to record that the issue is no more res integra in view of consistent decisions of this Tribunal that has attained finality with the approval of various Appellate Courts that Rule 6(3)(i) ibid cannot be made automatically applicable on failure to intimate in writing about options to be availed by the assessee but here the facts are completely different in the sense that Appellant disputed the demand saying that it had not availed any common input services for its trading activity, but accepted the observation of Audit without challenging the legality of the issue only to set the dispute at rest. Therefore, proportionate reversal, when made it in compliance to Audit report, is well within the knowledge of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
