TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n amount equal to 5%/6% of the value of exempted goods can t be demanded and benefit of Notification No. 1/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011 cannot be denied to the appellant. Demand of Interest - Held that:- The matter requires verification at the end of the adjudicating authority, therefore, for the limited purpose, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for calculation of interest - Matter on remand. Penalty - Held that:- Admittedly, during the impugned order, there was a dispute going on whether the appellant is manufacturing exempted goods or not, in that circumstances, no penalty is imposable to the appellant - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. E/51894/2014 - A/63066/2018-EX[DB] - Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods cleared by them and for the subsequent period i.e. 01.03.2011 to July 2012 it was proposed that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 1/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011. Consequently, they are required to pay duty on the said product on full value, as the appellant was not maintaining separate account of inputs used in manufacture of exempted goods in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The matter was adjudicated, the demands proposed in the show cause notice were confirmed. Against that order, the appellant is before us. 3. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there was a dispute during the period whether SLICE is exempt from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttributable to the exempted goods on inputs used in manufacturing of SLICE during the intervening period. In that circumstances, the same is equal to compliance of the Rule 6 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as they have not availed Cenvat credit on inputs used in manufacturing of exempted goods. Therefore, an amount equal to 5%/6% of the value of exempted goods can t be demanded and benefit of Notification No. 1/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011 cannot be denied to the appellant. He further take a note that the Ld. AR raised some disputes with regard to interest for intervening period. As the appellant has already reversed the Cenvat credit attributable to the inputs used in the manufacture of the exempted goods, therefore, the demand propose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
