Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 268 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - common inputs/input services used in the manufacture of the exempted final product as well as the other excisable product - non-maintenance of separate records - Rule 6 of CCR - period from 07/2005 to 03/2010 - HELD THAT:- In the present case two periods are involved for the period 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the appellant has already reversed the proportionate credit attributable to input services used for the exempted goods and the same has been accepted in the SCN and has also been appropriated and is not in dispute - Further, it is found that once the appellant has reversed the proportionate credit for the period April 2008 to March 2010 as provided under Rules then the question of demand of amount of 10% on the value of exempted goods as per Rule 6(3)(i) does not arise - it is the option of the assessee to choose either of the three options given under Rule 6 and the Department cannot substitute its own option and this has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of M/S. MERCEDES BENZ INDIA (P) LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-I [2015 (8) TMI 24 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and also by the recent decision of the Telangana High Court in the case of M/S TIARA ADVERTISING VERSUS UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE [2019 (10) TMI 27 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT]. Demand of ₹ 10,03,983/- pertaining to the period July 2005 to March 2008 - Time limitation - HELD THAT:- The entire demand is barred by limitation for the reason that during the disputed period, there was a dispute regarding statutory interpretation of Rule 6 of the CCR and subsequently there was a retrospective amendment vide Finance Act, 2010 also - also, the present proceedings were initiated on the basis of audit objections and it is well settled that no suppression can be alleged on the basis of audit objection in view of the various decisions relied upon by the appellants - further, in the present case, the appellant has placed on record Audit Note dated 08.02.2010 wherein Department itself has recorded that they had previously conducted audit of the records of the appellant during December 2008 audited up to March 2008 no objection on the issue was raised in the previous audit conducted by the Department. Therefore, the CENVAT credit availed by the appellant was in the knowledge of the Department and therefore, the question of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty does not arise and cannot be alleged against the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|