TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner informed that the input service credit attributable to the exempted goods cleared during the relevant period would be ₹ 16,64,309/- instead of ₹ 2,85,985/-. After accepting the claim of the appellants under Rule 6(5) of the said Rules, the Adjudicating authority reduced the amount to ₹ 4,33,778/-. We find that the verification report of the Assistant Commissioner was not disclosed to the appellants. The amount of ₹ 4,33,778/- as observed by the Adjudicating authority was also not informed to the assessees for compliance of the retrospective amendment under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010. In our considered view, the appellants should be given an opportunity to defend the report dated 20.11.2011, for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand of an amount of ₹ 1,24,05,146/-, being the amount of 10% of the value of the exempted goods cleared during the period from April 2005 to February 2006, along with interest and imposition of penalty. It is seen from the show cause notice that the appellant by their letter dated 21.04.2006, informed that out of the indirect input services availed by them 93% relates to dutiable products and 7% is for exempted products and a sum of ₹ 2,85,985/- being the credit availed on indirect input services used for exempted products. It has been alleged in the show cause notice that the appellants have not maintained separate accounts for common input services used for dutiable and exempted final products and availed credit on common in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5) of the said Rules, the Adjudicating authority observed that as per the assessee s calculation, the credit attributable to input services would be ₹ 4,33,778 /-. It is further observed that the appellants had paid an amount of ₹ 2,85,985/-. As they have not paid the interest on or before 07.11.2010, and therefore, they are not eligible to get the beneficial measure of the retrospective amendment made vide Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010. So, the Adjudicating authority confirmed the entire amount as proposed in the show cause notice. 6. On a query from the Bench, the Ld. Advocate submits that the verification report dated 20.01.2011, as reproduced in the Adjudication order was not disclosed to them. It is contended that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or compliance of the retrospective amendment under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010. In our considered view, the appellants should be given an opportunity to defend the report dated 20.11.2011, for determination of the amount of reversal of credit under retrospective amendment under Section 73 of the Finance Act, in the interest of justice. 8. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order. The matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating authority to decide afresh, after considering the submissions of the appellant. At this stage, the Ld. Advocate submits that the verification report may be supplied to them. Hence, we direct the Adjudicating authority to supply the verification report dated 20.01.2011. Needless to sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
