TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w that there is no malafide on the part of the assessee, with an intent to evade payment of duty. The appellants are manufacturing dutiable goods to the extent of 95% and only a very small percentage is of exempted final products, which is clear from the chart of productions for various years, placed on record by the appellant. During the year 2006-07, percentage of production of exempted goods was to the tune of 0.10% and during 2007-08, it was 0.04%. It is only in the year 2009 that the percentage increased to 1.22%. Inasmuch the major part of the appellants final product was dutiable, which was being cleared on payment of duty, the availment of CENVAT credit in respect of various services to the extent of 100%, cannot be held to be refl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the exempted final product, in terms of the provisions of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules. 2.1 The appellant during the course of adjudication admitted that they were utilizing GTA services for both dutiable as also exempted final products and they reversed an amount of ₹ 552/- being the input credit attributable to the GTA services. As regards Manpower Recruitment Agency services, they contended that such services were being used by them only for the packing, labeling and loading of the dutiable goods inasmuch as their dutiable goods are to the extent of 95% and only 5% exempted goods are being manufactured by them, the unskilled labour supplied to them by the manpower recruitment agency, was not used for the purposes of exempted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court of Karnataka in the case of Himalaya Drugs: 2011 (271) E.L.T. 350 (Kar.) and High Court of Madras in the case of ICMS Corporation Ltd.: 2015 (315) E.L.T. 388 (Mad.) has held that such reversal will amount to as if no credit was availed. However, though the appellants have contested that they have not used common manpower supply services for exempted goods also but it seems impossible that the unskilled labour supplied by the manpower supplier was used only for the packing, labeling of the dutiable goods. Apart from making a bald statement, the appellant has not produced any evidence to that effect. As such, it has to be held that manpower supply services were used for both the types of goods. Inasmuch as the appellants have not r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
