TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing cenvat credit on the duty paid on the inputs. Scrutiny of records of the appellants revealed that the appellants were engaged in manufacture of dutiable goods as well as exempted goods, namely, Utrone whereunder common inputs, on which credit had been taken, were being used. No separate records were maintained by the appellants for inputs used in manufacture of exempted goods and dutiable goods. As per provisions contained under sub-rule 3(b) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, if no separate accounts are maintained by the party, then they are requested to pay an amount equal to 10% of the total value of the clearances of exempted goods. Later on, the appellants vide their dated 13-3-2006 and 20-9-2006 informed that they had debited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ignoring the fact of deposit of Rs. 59,900/- on 19-9-2005 it had been fully established that the appellants had made reversal of such credit on the inputs utilized in the manufacture of UTERONE, which was exempt from excise duty; The appellants have followed the law in so far as the requirement of reversal of credit on the input used in the exempted final product is concerned; That the subjected issue the Hon ble Supreme Court in Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. v. Collector, reported in 1996(81) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and the decision of Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Punjab Fibre Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2002(141) E.L.T. 204 (Tri-Delhi) clearly hold that the reversal of modvat credit is permissible and on reversal of such modva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeal of M/s Durga Sewa Samiti vide O-in-A No.40-CE/APPL/KNP/04 dated 3-2-2004; Even otherwise the period of demand is from 19-7-2004 to 30-9-2005 and the show cause notice had been issued on 11-2-2006 and the entire facts were well known to the department, the notice issued by invoking the extended period is clearly barred by limitation in as much as the entire facts had come to the notice of the department on 19-9-2005 itself; The order has been passed by misconstruing and misinterpreting the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules and is simply based on audit objection and had not discussed the grounds taken up by the appellants and as such the same has been passed on mere assumptions and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is as to whether the appellants can be said to have availed Cenvat credit or not on the inputs used in manufacture of exempted goods. 5. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and find that the Adjudicating Authority has himself admitted that the appellants were not maintaining separate inventory of inputs used in manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods being manufactured by the appellants. Further, it has also not been alleged in the show cause notice that the amount debited by the appellants was not towards and equivalent to Cenvat credit involved on inputs used in manufacture of exempted goods for the period under dispute. It therefore remains undisputed that the appellants had already reversed the Cenvat credit taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
