9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that in fact he was required to reverse only proportionate credit. The appellant has also furnished calculation chart of proportionate credit required to be reversed alongwith his reply to the show cause notice but the same was not considered by both the authorities. The main ground raised by the appellant before both the authorities regarding the non applicability of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 has not been considered and not given any findings in the impugned order. There is no finding in the impugned order regarding the stand of the appellant to reverse only proportionate cenvat credit and not the whole cenvat credit on input services. This case needs to be remanded back to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh after conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound that electricity is an excisable goods and is chargeable to nil rate of duty and that the appellant has availed credit on the input services such as supply of Man Power Service and Insurance Service which have been commonly used for the generation of electricity which has been captively used for the manufacture of dutiable goods and part of the electricity which has been sold to the PSEB and has been used in the residential colony. 2.3. The appellant initially reversed credit amounting to Rs.92,357/- on proportional basis for the period from April, 2007 to February, 2009 but the show cause notice sought to recover an amount of Rs.36,09,315/- which was an amount equal to 10% of the value of electricity sold to PSEB and used in the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected their appeal. 2.7 Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard the parties and perused the case records. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submits that in the case of electricity although it has been mentioned against Tariff Entry No.27160000 in the First Schedule of the CETA, 1985 but no rate of duty has been specified against the entry. Hence, the electricity is not an excisable good and as it is not excisable, it cannot be considered as exempted goods. 4.1 He further submits that at the relevant po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods and consequently Rule 6 is not applicable. 6.1 We also find that the appellant though had reversed the entire amount of Rs. 14,20,586/- availed on all input services (Manpower supply and Insurance Service) which has been used for generation of electricity but his defence is that in fact he was required to reverse only proportionate credit. The appellant has also furnished calculation chart of proportionate credit required to be reversed alongwith his reply to the show cause notice but the same was not considered by both the authorities. 6.2 The only relief appellant is seeking in this case is that the excess amount reversed by them needs to be refunded back to them and they are also not liable to pay interest on the cenvat credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
