2017 (10) TMI 1042

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... DER Per: Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order, wherein the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant are engaged in the manufacture of dutiable as well as final exempted goods. During the course of audit, it was observed that the appellant is availing Cenvat credit on input/input .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... services which has been attributable to exempted goods. It is the contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellant that that the appellant itself has taken proportionate credit on input/input services which have gone in manufacturing of final dutiable goods. In that circumstance, although they are not maintaining separate account of input/input services used in manufacturing of dutiable as well as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s, I find that in this case the main issue is that whether the appellants are required to reverse the Cenvat credit as per impugned order or not. 7. It is a fact on record that the appellant is availing proportionate credit on input/input services used in manufacturing of dutiable final goods. In that circumstance, when the appellant is availing proportionate credit on input/input services used i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X