TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tc. became irrelevant. In the present case, the appellant all along have been claiming that they had availed CENVAT Credit only on the inputs that were used in the manufacture of dutiable final products, a fact remained undisputed by the Revenue even today, as is evident from the report of the Commissioner dated 09.07.2015. Hence, other issues raised by the Revenue about wrong calculation, reduction of demand etc. become irrelevant and accordingly not dealt with. Further, we find that for the subsequent period the department has accepted the formula adopted in availing the credit on inputs attributable to dutiable products and dropped the demands. In the result, the impugned order is set aside to the extent of confirming demand of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inputs like quartz powder, Borax, Soda Ash, Sodium Fluoride, deodymium oxide etc., on which CENVAT credit availed had been used. Fourteen periodical show cause notices were issued to the appellant for the period from March, 2003 to August, 2004 alleging that since the appellant had used common inputs in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted final products, without maintaining separate account for receipt, consumption and inventory of inputs, in accordance with Rule 6 (2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002; thus the appellant were required to pay 8% of the value of the exempted final product, that is, a total amount of ₹ 77,07,145.93. Later on adjudication, the said amount was confirmed and penalty of ₹ 10.00 Lakhs under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... March, 2003 informing the proper officer that they would be availing CENVAT Credit proportionately only to the extent of the inputs that would be used in the manufacture of dutiable products arrived at as a percentage of the total production of dutiable and exempted goods during the respective period i.e. April, 2002 to February, 2003 and subsequent letters for the period April, 2003 to March, 2004. 6. It is contention that in the de novo proceeding while confirming the amount of ₹ 6,59,516/-, the Ld. Commissioner has erroneously observed that they have availed CENVAT Credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of the exempted goods cleared for home consumption. It is his submission that at no point of time, they have availed CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the appeal of the appellant setting aside the demand for the subsequent period from September, 2004 to March, 2006 involving the total demand of ₹ 1,31,41,475/-. It is his contention that the Additional Commissioner vide its order-in-original No. 03-05/MP/Addl. Commissioner/08 dated 31/03/2008 dropped the demands for the period April, 2006 to November, 2006 involving a total demand of ₹ 51,07,543/-. Therefore, it is his contention that the present demand is not sustainable as the department in the subsequent Orders accepted their stand and proceedings. 9. Per contra, the ld.AR for the Revenue submits that at the relevant point of time, the appellant had not maintained separate inventory of inputs meant to be used in relatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. Heard both sides and perused the records. The present demand which is 8% of the value of the exempted products, cleared during the period March, 2003 to August, 2004, has been confirmed on the ground that the appellant had failed to comply with the conditions laid down under Rule 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, inasmuch as, separate accounts for receipt, consumption, inventory of inputs, issue slips for inputs meant for use in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted final products were not maintained. The claim of the appellant on the other hand is that they have maintained meticulously separate records for the use of inputs in the manufacture of dutiable final products and exempted final products; availed CENVAT Credit only on the u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments contention is that no separate physical inventory had been maintained of the inputs that were required to be used in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted products and also the records were not maintained in accordance with issuance of inputs like issue slips of inputs, used in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted products. On the other hand the assesse through its letters dated 11.03.2003 and 20.03.2003 communicated to the department the methodology by which they had arrived at the quantum of credit involved on the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of dutiable final products only. It is pertinent to not that nether any alternative method nor any dispute about the quantum of credit being in excess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
