TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the interest of Rs. 4,71,189/-. We feel that by doing so, the appellants, have undone the act of taking/utilizing the credit, it amounts to not taking the credit and, therefore, they are not required to pay an amount equal to 10%. Since the legal position stands settled in favour of the assessee, there are no reason to take a contrary view. In the facts of the present case, since it is found that the credit amount attributable to clearance of exempted goods stands already reversed which fact is on record, there is no justification to saddle the assessee with disproportionate demand by mechanically applying the formula of 10% of the value of exempted goods, moresoever when credit has not been availed of such huge amount. Appeal allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cture of dutiable and exempted goods. 3. Shri B. Thakkar, Learned Chartered Accountant appeared for the appellant and Shri J, Chattopadhyay, learned Authorized Representative appeared for the Revenue. 4. Heard both sides through video conferencing and perused the appeal records. 5. We find that the issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the demand raised in the impugned order by invoking Rule 6(3)(b) of the Credit is legally sustainable whereby the amount of 10% of the value of exempted goods has been considered as ineligible credit. 6. We find that the appellant has submitted in the course of adjudication that credit is only obtained for clearance of eligible goods and that necessary records are maintained segregating th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be considered as credit not availed. The appellant also submitted that if the amount of credit is reversed along with interest, then there is no violation of Rule 6 of Credit Rules. He relied on the following decisions:- Dr. Writers Food Products vs. C.C.E., Pune 2009 (247) E.L.T. 391 C.C.E. vs. Amola Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (16) S.T.R. 46 (TRI Allahabad) C.C.E. vs Mann Pharmaceuticals 2011 (263) E.L.T. 661 (Gujarat High Court) 8. The appellant also contested the demand on limitation and also contested the imposition of penalty on same counts. 9. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Dr. Writers Food Products (Supra) has observed that :- 8. The learned Jt. CDR, in view of the above, emphasized, that on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 condition (a) or condition (b), as the case may be. Under the Rule, Explanation-1 provides that the amount mentioned in any of the conditions shall be paid by the manufacturer by debiting the Cenvat credit or otherwise. 6. Thus, in e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
