TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - CESTAT BANGALORE], wherein the Tribunal held that the condition in Rule 6(3A) to intimate the Department is only a procedural one and that such procedural lapse is condonable and denial of substantive right on such procedural failure is unjustified - demand cannot sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/665/2010 - 41078/2018 - Dated:- 4-4-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri S.Muthuvenkatraman, Advocate For the Appellant Shri K.Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) For the Respondent Per Bench Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar, molasses, rectified spirit, Denatured ethyl alcohol, and e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proportionate credit attributable to inputs/input services used for production of exempted goods. The only allegation raised against the appellant is that they did not file the declaration as contemplated in Rule 6 (3A). The act of the appellant in reversing the credit itself would establish the intention to avail the option of reversing proportionate credit. He argued that when the law provides for an option to the assessee, the department cannot unilaterally force the appellant to pay 10% / 5% of the value of excisable goods. He submitted that the issue is no longer res integra and decided by the judgements in the case of Tata Technologies Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise 2016-TIOL-272-CESTAT-MUM and Cranes Structural Engineers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsequently, the argument of Revenue is that the appellants exercising option is mandatory and on its failure, the appellant has no other option but to accept and apply Rule 6(3)(i) and make payment of 5%/10% of the sale price of the exempted goods or exempted services is not acceptable, because the Rule does not lay down any such restriction and this has been held in the judgments cited supra. It has been held in the judgment cited supra that the condition in Rule 6(3A) to intimate the Department is only a procedural one and that such procedural lapse is condonable and denial of substantive right on such procedural failure is unjustified. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and evidence on record, the demand raised by the Revenue is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
