9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been held that the said requirement is only procedural in nature and the substantive benefit cannot be denied on such grounds. Further, in this case, the Appellant has intimated the jurisdictional Range Officer, explaining that they were availing only the proportionate Credit on the value of taxable services, which is also reflected in their Balance Sheet as well as their ST3 Returns. The Department ought to have taken note of the fact that the Appellant has exercised the option. The Department cannot force the assessee to pay 5% or 6% of the value of exempted services when the assessee has exercised the option of reversing the proportionate Credit. The demand raised cannot sustain and requires to be set aside - appeal allowed. - HON B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- in respect of CENVAT credit. However, demand of INR 95,077/- was confirmed under Rule 6(3) of the CCR, 2004 alongwith applicable interest and penalty of equal amount was imposed under Rule 15(2) of the CCR, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority who rejected the appeal before him and upheld the adjudication order. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The learned Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the Appellant has been maintaining separate books of accounts as prescribed under Rule 6(2) of the CCR, 2004 for CENVAT Credit exclusively used for taxable and exempted services i.e. trading of goods. Any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdictional Officer has to be intimated about the exercise of the option to reverse proportionate Credit. Therefore, they are liable to pay 6% of the value of exempted goods. The confirmation of demand, interest and imposition of penalties are therefore legal and proper. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 6. The issue in the present appeal is whether the Appellant is liable to pay an amount equal to 6% of the value of the exempted products when they have opted to reverse the proportionate credit in respect of the trading activity (exempted service). 7. The Department alleges that since the Appellant has not maintained separate accounts, they have to pay an amount equal to 6% of the value of their exempted clearances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
