TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avail CENVAT Credit on the input Dextrose anhydrous , the principal raw material used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, but availed only on input packing material. However, in view of the retrospective amendment to the relevant Cenvat Credit Rules by virtue of Section 70 to 73 of Finance Act, 2010, the Appellant are eligible to reverse proportionate CENVAT Credit for the disputed period attributable to the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted product. Therefore, to ascertain the above facts and to apply the retrospective amendment by allowing the Appellant to reverse the proportionate credit, it is necessary to remand the case to the Adjudicating authority. Accordingly, the Appeal is remanded to the Adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the said Notice, alleging wrong availment of CENVAT Credit attributable to inputs contained in the exempted as well as dutiable finished goods lying in balance as on 07.03.2005 i.e the date on which the Appellant stopped payment of duty. On adjudication, the demands were confirmed, penalty of equal amount on the Appellant Company and personal penalty on the Director of the Company were imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant preferred appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, upheld the order of the lower authority except imposition of penalty of ₹ 3,95,783/- on the Appellant Company. Hence, the present appeal. 4. The learned Advocate Shri Nimesh Mehta for the Appellant submitted that during the relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allenging the confirmation of amount of ₹ 3,95,783/-, the learned Advocate submitted that there was no proposal for recovery of the amount in the demand notice, confirmation of the same is bad in law. On the Directors penalty the Ld. Advocate submitted there is no evidence on record to show the personal involvement of the Director in wrong availment of credit. 5. Per contra, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue has submitted that in the Show Cause Notice, recovery of ₹ 11,09,153/- as well as ₹ 3,95,783/- had been proposed and since the amount of ₹ 3,95,783/- had been paid, the same was appropriated, therefore, it is incorrect to say that there was no proposal in the Show Cause Notice. Regarding t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e inputs used in the manufacture of exempted product. Therefore, to ascertain the above facts and to apply the retrospective amendment by allowing the Appellant to reverse the proportionate credit, it is necessary to remand the case to the Adjudicating authority. Accordingly, the Appeal No.E/803/2008 is remanded to the Adjudicating authority to ascertain the proportionate credit attributable to exempted products and allow its reversal in the light of the retrospective amendment. 7. As far as the Appeal relating to penalty on the Director is concerned, I do not find any specific reason has been recorded by both the authorities below narrating the Directors role for non-reversal of the CENVAT Credit. Accordingly, the penalty on the Direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
