9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eared on behalf of the appellants and Mr. S.G. Dewalwar, SDR, for the Revenue. Party's appeal E/248/2007 4. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aerated water under various brand names. The products are packed in glass bottle which are durable packing and capable of repeated use in the manufacture of aerated water. These glass bottles are transported to various locations in plastic crates. Revenue proceeded against the appellants on the ground that during the period from March 2001 to March 2003, they had not maintained separate books of accounts for the plastic crates used in the manufacture of exempted and dutiable final products. On adjudication, the Commissioner passed the impugned order. The Commissioner ordered reye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... azza sold as same empty crates were repeatedly used on which no Cenvat Credit was availed. The demand is for the period March 2001 to March 2003 for which statements were recorded by the department on 13-3-2003, but Show Cause Notice dated 27-2-2006 was received on 6-3-2006- delay of about 3 years for issue of Show Cause Notice - clearly barred by limitation. (c) During the relevant period, separate books of account were maintained and the Cenvat paid on common inputs were duly apportioned. As the appellant has maintained separate records for all the inputs under reversed the credit on crates. On reversal of the credit, it cannot be said that the appellant had taken credit on crates used in the supply of exempted go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bang.) 9 Sathyakala Agro Oil Products v. CCE - 2008 (223) E.L.T. 441 (Tri.-Bang.) 10 CCE v. IPCA Laboratories Ltd. - 2005 (67) RLT 509 (CESTAT-Del.) 11 Wipro Ltd. v. CCE - 2004 (175) E.L.T. 219 (Tri.-Bang.) 12 CCE v. Raja Ram Marbles Pvt. Ltd. - 2004 (64) RLT 138 (CESTAT-Del.) 13 GTN Textiles Ltd. v. CCE., Hyderabad - 2007 (218) E.L.T. 630 (Tri.-Bang.) 14 Forbes Gokak Mills v. CCE, Belgaum - 2007 (208) E.L.T. 521 (Tri.-Bang.) = 2008 (10) S.T.R. 540 15 ETA Technology Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore - 2007 (212) E.L.T. 371 (Tri.-Bang.) = 2007 (6) S.T.R. 207 16 Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE - 2006 (205) E.L.T. 188 (Tri.-Bang.) 17 Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 2007 (214) E.L.T. 248 (Tri.-Chennai) 18 Lovely Food Inustries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow Cause Notice seeks to recover 8% of the price of Maaza inasmuch as the assessee has availed of Cenvat credit in respect of inputs used in both dutiable as well as exempted final products and he has not maintained separate accounts for receipt, consumption and inventory of inputs meant for use in the manufacture of the dutiable final products and quantity of inputs meant for use in the manufacture of exempted goods and has not taken Cenvat credit only on that quantity of inputs which is intended for use in the manufacture of dutiable goods but has taken credit on all the inputs. The Show Cause Notice seeks to demand this amount in terms of Rule 57CC of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules/Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. 10. It is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
