9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entire demand of Rs. 23,37,973/- raised on the ground that the respondent was liable to pay 10% of the value of the exempted goods as it had taken cenvat credit on common input services which are used for manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods. 2. The ld. Advocate for the respondent pleaded that the appellant took total credit of Rs. 4,17,918/- on common input services which it reversed even prior to the issuance of the Order-in-Original. Therefore, the Revenue s appeal has no substance. He cited the judgment in the case of Jost s Engineering Co. Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai-III 2015 (320) ELT 157 (Tri.-Mum.). 3. Regarding the appeal filed by the respondent assessee the ld. Advocate admitted that the amount was reversed prior to the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en along with interest thereon. Therefore, Rule 6(3)(i) will not have any application, when a credit is taken wrongly and the same is reversed along with interest as it tantamounts to non-taking of the credit. The Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the Hello Minerals. Water (P) Ltd. case cited supra clearly held that reversal of Modvat credit amounts to non-taking of credit on the inputs and even if such reversal was done after the clearance of the goods the said action amounts to non-availment of credit. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. (supra) also held that reversal of Modvat Credit at the time of clearance of the goods amounts to non-availing of credit. All the judgments relied upon by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on common input services was reversed but not alongwith interest and therefore as per judgment cited by the ld. Advocate for the respondent-assessee the interest would become payable. 6. As regards the respondent s appeal, we find the same to be infructuous inasmuch as, in contesting the Revenue s appeal it has taken the plea that the entire credit taken on input services used in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods had been reversed before issue of the primary adjudication order and the impugned order-in-appeal only upheld the primary adjudication order which only confirmed the amount (Rs.4,17,918/-) which the appellant had already reversed. It had taken this plea before the Commissioner (A) also. 7. In the light of for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
