Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (10) TMI 501

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fter such reversal and payment of interest for the delayed period i.e. from the date of taking credit till the date of reversal of proportionate credit the demand equal to 6% under Rule 6 (3) shall not sustain as held in numerous Judgments. Reliance can be placed in PI INDUSTRIES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ST, SURAT-II [ 2023 (6) TMI 455 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] and C.C.E. S.T. -VADODARA-II VERSUS ALSTOM INDIA LIMITED [ 2022 (11) TMI 1070 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] where it was held that 'the demand equal to 6% on the traded goods (exempted service) is not sustainable.' The demand is not sustainable. Hence the impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed. - HON'BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON'BLE MR. RAJU .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... services, under Rule 6 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 1.3. It was observed that Rule 6 (2) of the Rules casts an obligation on the manufacturer of dutiable goods and exempted service, to maintain separate accounts for receipt, consumption and inventory of input and input services meant for use in the manufacture of dutiable final products and the input/input services meant for use in manufacture of exempted goods and take cenvat credit only on that quantity of input/input services which are intended for use in the manufacture of dutiable goods. 1.4. In terms of Rule 6 (3) of the Rules, the manufacturer of goods opting not to maintain separate accounts were required to exercise the options prescribed and either pay an amount equal to 6%, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... previously reversed on 19.03.2015, dated 02.11.2015. 1.8. In the above premises, the Appellant was issued a show cause notice dated 28.11.2016 inviting the Appellants to show cause as to why the amount of Rs. 1, 68, 38,813/- calculated for the period March 2013 to December 2014 should not be dermanded and recovered from them under Rule 14 of the Rules read with proviso to Section 11A of the Act, along with interest and penalty. 1.9. On 18.03.2017, the Appellant filed its detailed reply, inter-alia, on the ground that they had reversed the entire credit of input services along with interest. The reversal of entire cenvat credit shall amount to not having availed the credit at all. Thus, the SCN deserves to be dropped. The Appellant also sub .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the exempted services. E. In case of non-exercising of any option as mentioned in either Rule 6(1) or Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the Appellants have to pay an amount on a value which shall be the difference between the sale price and cost of the goods sold or 10% of cost of goods sold, whichever is higher. F. As the issue came to the light after verification of the records, the Appellant has indulged in suppression of material facts with an intent to evade payment of duty. Thus, extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) has been rightly invoked and penalty under Section 11AC is liable to be imposed read with Rule 15 of the Rules. 1.1. Being aggrieved by the order-in-original, the Appellants filed an appeal dated 08.03. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the record. We find that the demand of CENVAT Credit was raised which is equal to 6% of difference between the purchase price and sale price of trading goods in terms of Rule 6 (3). However, it is also not in dispute that the appellant have reversed the proportionate credit along with payment of interest. Therefore, after such reversal and payment of interest for the delayed period i.e. from the date of taking credit till the date of reversal of proportionate credit the demand equal to 6% under Rule 6 (3) shall not sustain as held in numerous Judgments, some of the Judgments .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates