TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t if the appellant is directed to reverse this amount of Rs.1,22,606/-, it would meet the ends of justice and also the compliance of the law under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. We direct the appellant to reverse an amount of Rs.1,22,606 within 30 days from the date of receipt - appellant also needs to be directed to pay interest on both the amounts i.e. Rs.3,26,554/- and Rs.1,22,606/-. Lower authorities will calculate the interest in accordance with the provisions of law and inform the appellant accordingly, and the appellant within 10 days of such amount being intimated, will pay the same into the Government treasury - However, penalty is set aside - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.E/899/2011-DB - Order No. A/1056 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntentions of the appellant and confirmed the demand. Hence, this appeal. 3. Ld. Counsel, at the outset, submits that there is no dispute that the appellant had availed the CENVAT Credit on the common input services. It is his submission that the appellant had reversed the entire amount of CENVAT Credit availed during the period 18.01.2007 to 31.03.2010. He would also submit that the appellant had not reversed the amount of Rs.1,22,606/- of the CENVAT Credit availed on the common input services during the period 30.08.2005 to 17.01.2007 as they had not started manufacturing the exempted cotton yarn during the relevant period. In support of such a claim, he would draw our attention to the correspondence entered by the appellant with Dy. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UoI - 2012 (285) ELT 161 (Bom.) and also by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE Bangalore Vs Himalaya Drug Co. - 2012 (27) STR 95 (Kar.) 7. As regards the amount of credit not reversed i.e. Rs.1,22,606/- for the period 30.08.2005 to 17.01.2007, though the appellant has produced some kind of evidence before us which would indicate that the appellant had started manufacturing the exempted cotton yarn from 18.01.2007, we find that the issue is unverifiable and the adjudicating authority has recorded that the appellant did not produce any evidence before him. Keeping in mind the elapsed time, we are of the view that if the appellant is directed to reverse this amount of Rs.1,22,606/-, it would meet the ends of justice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
