TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appeal is dismissed. - 2545 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 16-12-2010 - Harsha Devani and H.B. Antani, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Y.N. Ravani, Sr. Standing Counsel, for the Appellant. Shri Paresh M. Dave, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Harsha Devani, J. (Oral)]. - In this appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act), the appellant - Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad has challenged order dated 15th June, 2009 [2009 (248) E.L.T. 504 (Tribunal)] made by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) proposing the following question :- Whether the Hon ble Tribunal is right in accepting reversal of credit taken by the assessee in this case instead of upholding the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that though the issue in question was decided in favour of the assessee by various decisions of the Tribunal as well as a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Chandrapur Magnet Wires Ltd., 1996 (81) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), in the light of the fact that there was a circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs wherein it has been stated that the assessee has no option but to reverse 8% of the price of exempted products, which was binding upon him, he confirmed the total demand of Rs. 70,80,591/- alongwith interest and penalty of equal amount. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal who vide the impugned order allowed the appeal. 4. Heard Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned Senior Standing Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra), as well as a decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Maize Products (supra). In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Maize Products, this Court has held as follows :- 5. The appellant has produced relevant extracts from the relevant Rule of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 which relates to obligation of manufacturer of dutiable and exempted products. Under sub-rule (2) of the said Rules, a manufacturer is required to maintain separate accounts regarding inputs used for manufacturing of dutiable products and inputs used for manufacturing of exempted products. However, sub-rule (3) stipulates that, in a case where the manufacturer opts not to maintain separate accounts, the manufacturer shall follow either co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
