Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 481 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - input/input services - non-maintenance of separate records - whether the appellant herein had followed the provisions of Rule 6(3) and (3A) of the said Rules correctly or otherwise? - Held that: - the provisions of Rule 6(3) specifically indicate that an assessee if he is opting not to maintain separate account shall follow the options given under the said sub-rule - In the case in hand, the appellant herein had exercised their option of not maintaining separate account and following the option of payment of an amount as determined under sub-rule (3A). The said sub-rule (3A) specifically lays down the procedure that needs to be followed by the assessee and the one of the main procedures is in clause (a) wherein an option needs to be exercised by the manufacturer/assessee - In the case in hand, the appellant herein had exercised this option on 7th October 2013 itself - On careful perusal of the provisions of Rule 6(3A) of the said Rules, I do not find any requirement of filing of an intimation every year. Both the lower authorities have not disputed the calculation done by the appellant in the case in hand. Having not disputed the said calculation and there being no contest to such reversal undertaken by the appellant confirming the demand of an amount of equivalent to 6% of the value of the trading activity only on the ground that the appellant has not filed the intimation every year seems to be not in consonance with the law and needs to be set aside. Appeal allowed.
|