9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the extended period. In Paragraph 14 of the Order-in-Original, the Adjudicating Authority has observed that the conduct of the assessee in maintaining separate accounts for inputs and not maintaining separate accounts for input services commonly used for dutiable and exempted goods is a pre-planned action for evasion of duty - this view cannot be agreed upon. Whatever be the reason given by the appellant for not maintaining separate accounts in regard to input services, it is to be seen that the Department was aware of this fact - The appellant has disclosed the availment of credit in ER-1 returns. When Department had issued Show Cause Notice dated 04.04.2012 on the same allegation of availing wrong credit, the subsequent Show Cause Notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ligible as credit for the reason that the appellant has not maintained separate accounts for the common input services used for exempted and dutiable goods. 1.2 Against the Order-in-Original dated 08.05.2012, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 21.12.2012 held that the rejection of rebate claim of Rs.1,07,010/- cannot be sustained and held that the appellant was eligible for rebate. It was observed that the eligibility of credit cannot be disputed by Department in a rebate claim. The Commissioner (Appeals), however observed that the order does not preclude Department from taking appropriate action under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 1.3 The balance r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nging such credit the appellant did not maintain separate accounts of commonly used input services. The appellant utilized the credit of Rs.1,07,010/- availed on input services for payment of duty and claimed the rebate. As per the explanation of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the provision of grant of exemption benefit on condition of non-availment of CENVAT Credit would prevail over provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant therefore is not required to maintain separate account and the disallowance of credit is without any legal basis. 2.1 The Ld. counsel argued on the ground of limitation also. It is submitted that the availment of credit was known to the Department. The appellant after availing credit had filed for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is alleged that the credit is not eligible as the appellant has not maintained separate accounts as required under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The relevant Paragraph reads as under:- The remaining duty amount of Rs. 1,07,010/- relates to service tax paid on overseas sales commission and earned over a period of time. As stated supra, export clearances of yarn are made by M/s. The Lakshmi Mills on payment of duty and also as exempted on availing exemption Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004. However, in as much as the provisions of rule 6 of CCR, 2004 is not followed by the assessee in respect of input services, the payment of duty of the said amount of Rs. 1,07,010/- by taking 100% of service tax credit on input services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
