Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 14 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - common input and input services for both taxable and exempted goods - non-maintenance of separate records - Rule 6(3)(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that:- The appellants have in fact maintained the separate records in respect of inputs used for dutiable and exempted goods and in case of common input services, the appellant did not maintain separate records. Further, the appellant has stated that they were having sufficient balance in their CENVAT credit account and they have not utilized the credit availed. Further, after the introduction of GST they have allegedly reversed the credit more than the proportionate credit required to be reversed. Demand of interest - Held that:- Once they have the sufficient balance in their CENVAT credit account and they have reversed the proportionate credit before its utilization, then they are not liable to pay interest in view of the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE vs. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 969 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. Appellants have filed the documents alleging that they have reversed proportionate credit and had sufficient closing balance in their CENVAT account but this fact needs to be verified by the original authority - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|