TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee can make submissions as to why the calculation adopted by him may or may not be justified. After the retrospective amendment made by Section 73 of Finance Act, 2010, there is no scope for demanding the assessee to pay 10%/5% of the value of the exempted product. Prima facie, we are convinced that the assessee has complied with the provisions of the amended Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Retrospectively amended provisions are applicable for the impugned period also. If the calculations submitted by the appellant is not correct, the Commissioner has to calculate the correct amount to be reversed explaining the method he proposes to adopt and giving an opportunity for hearing the appellant. Therefore, we set aside the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not take Cenvat credit in respect of inputs that were used in the manufacture of exempted products and they have been maintaining accounts of such raw materials for which they had not taken Cenvat credit. Therefore, their main contention is that they have taken credit only as per Rule 6(1) of the said Rules and there is no case for invoking the provisions of Rule 6(3) because that rule is applicable only for a manufacturer who does not maintain separate accounts for inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted products. They further point out that the Cenvat credit taken by them was short of the amounts for which they would have been eligible for credit. They present the facts as under : 1. Period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing any short paid amount from them. 5. It is also argued that the Commissioner has not extended the benefit of retrospective amendment made in Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010 while deciding the matters for the period 1-4-2008 to 30-9-2009. 6. They also argue that this is a case where they have been furnishing the required returns and there was no basis for invoking the extended period of five years for demanding any amount short paid. For the same reasons, they also submit that no penalty is imposable on them. 7. The learned AR for Revenue submits that the appellants have maintained separate account only in respect of Soda Ash and not in respect of other raw materials and therefore, thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... number of varieties of exempted/dutiable final products in the only furnace and were maintaining single RG-I Register, and that too by making entries in the units dozens/sets whereas the inputs were being received, issued and accounted for in unit kgs. They were also having no record showing the co-relation with the weight of the material used in say one dozen of the finished goods. Thus I find that reversal of credit on proportionate basis is virtually impossible in the facts and circumstances of this case, and the party is liable to pay the amount at the prescribed rate during the relevant period. 9. We have considered arguments of both sides. 10. As per the provisions of Section 73(3) of Finance Act, 2010, if the Commissioner find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
