9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as dutiable goods and had availed of the Cenvat facility for the payment of duty. Under Rule 6(2), where a manufacturer or service provider is engaged in manufacturing dutiable as well as exempted goods, he is required to maintain separate accounts for the receipt, consumption and inventory of input and input services meant for use in the manufacture of dutiable final products or in providing output service from those meant for use in the manufacture of exempted goods or services. If the manufacturer does not keep separate accounts in respect of dutiable and exempted goods, Rule 6(3)(b) provides for payment of 10% of the total price of the exempted goods. Two notices to show cause were issued. One notice to show cause dated 28 April, 2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the proviso to Section 11A was not warranted. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the penalty that was imposed on the appellant was under Rule 15(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. As a matter of fact, the Revenue would be aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal interfering with the penalty that was imposed, but in the facts of the case, no appeal has been filed by the Revenue, having regard to the quantum involved. However, it was urged that invocation of the extended period of limitation in respect of the first show cause notice was validly made and no interference in the Appeal is warranted. 4. The order of adjudication passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 30 March, 2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may make an application to the Commissioner of Central Excise together with documentary evidence and a certificate of a Chartered/Cost Accountant within six months from the date on which the Bill receives the assent of the President. On such an application being made, the Commissioner was empowered to call upon the applicant to pay the differential amount together with interest which was required to be paid within ten days from the receipt of the communication. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had not taken recourse to this procedure nor had it reversed the Cenvat credit. The time limit stipulated expired in November, 2010. Hence, the material before the Tribunal was sufficient to indicate that admittedly the Appellant produced dutiabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
