TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed goods and its clearance upto the place of removal or for provision of exempted services which was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2011. This being prospective in nature, the amended provision cannot be held to be applicable for the first period, i.e., July 2010 to March 2011 - demand set aside. For the second period i.e. April 2011 to June 2012, the definition of ‘exempted service’ was amended by including trading activity, but however, in terms of Rule 6, the value of non-excisable goods shall be the invoice/agreement/contract value and where such value is not available, the same to be determined by using reasonable means consistent with the principles of valuation. In the third period i.e. July 2012 to March 2015, the appellant has submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the activity of E-1 sales was not trading activity and further submitted that even if they were to be considered as a trading activity,but still, the same was not an exempted service for the various reasons given in the written submissions. The adjudicating authority, the Commissioner vide a impugned order dated 29.02.2016 in Order-in-Original No. 6/2016, however, confirmed the demand apart from interest and penalty as proposed. The learned Commissioner also levied penalty on the Senior Accounts Manager (appellant in E/20698/2016) of ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) in terms of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Seriously aggrieved by the above order the assessee is in appeal before this forum. 2. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther cleared by the introduction of Rule 6(3)(a) and Rule 6(3A) but with a condition to be exercised at the option of the assessee/manufacturer. 3.4. The contention of the assessee that for this period it had reversed the credit on a proportionate basis in terms of Rule 6(3A) appears to have neither been questioned nor negatived by the adjudicating authority and against which he has confirmed the amount payable at 5% or 6% of the exempted value. I find that the decisions relied on by the learned consultant supports his contentions. i. Mercedes Benz India P. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2015-TIOL-1550-CESTAT-MUM. ii. Nitcon Value Inds Ltd. Vs. CCE 2016-TIOL-72-CESTAT-MUM. iii. Tata Technologies Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-I 2016-TIOL-272-CESTA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e second period, the AO shall value in accordance with law as indicated above. 8. In the other appeal in E/20698/2016 in the case of individual, I find force in the contentions of the appellant that the appellant in the capacity of Accounting Manager was not having any independent charge but for being the Accounts Manager and in any case, he is not the accountable person to be fastened with liability. Moreover, there is no mens rea attached or even alleged and hence I agree with the plea of the appellant that the appellant had only acted in good faith by pleading that the transaction of E-1 sales did not attract Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules. I also find that the decisions relied on by the appellant on the following cases supported his c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
