9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vocates, for the Appellant. Shri Amit Jain, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides on the stay petition. 2. The applicant manufactured branded and un-branded refined oil falling under Chapter 15071000. Un-branded refind oil is exempted under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. dated 1-3-2002. The applicant has used certain common inputs like packing m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f chemicals, they have maintained separate accounts, which submission is being disputed by the Department. The credit taken is only Rs. 7,52,963/- whereas highly disproportionate amount of Rs. 1,42,71,958/- is being demanded. They had no intention to contravene any provisions of the law. He relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Maize Products v. CCE-II, Ahmedabad reported in 2007 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect of inputs used in final products on which duty is paid. When common inputs are used, they ought to maintain separate accounts for inputs going into exempted products and dutiable products. In the absence of maintenance of such accounts, the consequences are that they are necessarily to pay 8% (subsequently 10% of the value of the exempted products). There is no option to them in this regard. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit of Rs. 7.5 Lakhs attracting a heavy demand of Rs. 1.4 Crores. Further, the ld. Advocate submits that they have maintained separate accounts in respect of chemicals, which is being disputed by the Department. This fact has to be gone into at the time of final hearing. However, we find in the similar circumstances, in the case of Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. (supra) and in the case of Maize Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
