TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h in Rule 6(2) as well as 6(3A) to lay down procedures when common input services are used for dutiable products / services and trading activities. This amendment was brought forth in Rule 6(2) with effect from 1.4.2011 making it necessary to maintain separate accounts upto place of removal / depot when common input services are used by the appellant. The appellant cannot take refuge of the part of the amendment brought forth in Rule 6(2) and thereafter apply it to the period prior to 1.4.2011. Appellant also claims that there are apparent mistakes in the quantification of demand - matter requires reconsideration. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. E/510/2009 - 41464/2018 - Dated:- 23-4-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is eligible for credit. He submitted that Rule 6(2) which provided that a manufacturer has to maintain separate accounts for common input services was restricted to the place of manufacture / factory prior to 1.4.2011 and the same was extended to depot / upto the place of removal only from 1.4.2011. Hence disallowance of credit is not legal or proper. 2.2 Ld. counsel also informs that a miscellaneous application E/Misc./101/2010 was filed by the appellant to receive additional grounds. The appellant has given calculations of the disputed credit in the said miscellaneous applications; that as per such calculation, it can be seen that the quantification of credit which has been disallowed by the authorities below is incorrect; that the dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e used for dutiable products / services and trading activities. This amendment was brought forth in Rule 6(2) with effect from 1.4.2011 making it necessary to maintain separate accounts upto place of removal / depot when common input services are used by the appellant. The appellant cannot take refuge of the part of the amendment brought forth in Rule 6(2) and thereafter apply it to the period prior to 1.4.2011. Hence this contention of the appellant fails. 7, However, in the miscellaneous application filed by the appellant to receive additional grounds, it is contended that there are apparent mistakes in the quantification of demand. The show cause notice proposes to demand ₹ 41,98,496/- along with education cess of ₹ 83,970 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
