TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee. Rule 6(2) of CCR, 2004 – Held that:- Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules does not require separate maintenance of records in respect of fuel, there is no requirement of proportionate reversal of credit when such fuel is ultimately used in the manufacture of exempted products – This proposition is relied upon based upon the decision by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana vs. Nestle India [2009 (8) TMI 510 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT]; Decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE vs. Charak Pharma P. Ltd. [2012 (11) TMI 475 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ]; Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Ltd. reported in [2006 (12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 6(2) were the subject matter of various decisions of Hon ble High Court as also by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana vs. Nestle India [2010 (250) ELT 341 (P H)] held that there is no requirement of reversal of credit availed on the fuel which stand used in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted final product. To the similar effect is the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE vs. Charak Pharma P. Ltd. [2012 (278) ELT 319 (Guj)]. Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Ltd. reported in [2007 (208) ELT 342 (Tri-LB)] also held that inasmuch as sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of Rule 6(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules in a manner that no reversal liability of Cenvat credit would arise in respect of assessee where no separate accounts are being maintained in case of fuel which is being used for dutiable as also for exempted final product. If the expert bodies, judicial as well as quasi judicial, have interpreted the law in favour of the assessee, the assessee cannot be held guilty of any suppression or mis-statement etc. Inasmuch as the show cause notice stand issued by invoking the longer period of limitation, I hold that demand is barred by limitation. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside on this ground and appeal allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. (Pronounced in the open court) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
