Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 475 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - common input services used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods - non-maintenance of separate records - Rule 6 (3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that:- The adjudicating authority dropped the demand on the basis of verification of the factual position and came to the finding that the separate account are being maintained and no modvat credit is being availed in respect of the input used in the manufacture of final product. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the same on his own analysis - It is also a fact that only one incidence of availing CENVAT credit on 30HP motor was relied upon. The appellant admittedly reversed credit on the said motor. No evidence was brought on record that the appellant have availed CENVAT credit in respect of any other inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods. The demand under Rule 6 can be raised only if it is established that the appellant have availed CENVAT credit in respect of the inputs which have gone into the manufacture of exempted goods. Without establishing this, the demand under rule 6, merely on the basis that the assessee has not maintained the separate account, cannot be confirmed - In the present case it is admitted facts that the appellant have maintained 2 separate accounts one for cenvatable input in RG-23A/C part-I register and for non cenvatable inputs record is maintained in Form-IV register. The closing balance of any of the input was not shown as minus balance therefore, in respect of total 8 dutiable boiler, the quantity of inputs were sufficient in manufacture of such 8 boiler. This shown that no cenvatable input was used in the manufacture of exempted boiler - Moreover, since there is no evidence on record that the appellant have used inputs for manufacture of exempted boiler on which credit was availed, the demand under Rule 6 is not legal and correct. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|