TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Tribunal in the case of Cranes & Structural Engineers [2016 (8) TMI 387 - CESTAT BANGALORE] has 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. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20351/2018-SM - Final Order No. 21819/2018 - Dated:- 29-11-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Raghavendra, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Madhup Sharan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 18.1.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peared to be liable to pay 6% on the value of ₹ 2,27,30,293/- of exempted sales/service for the period 2013-14 and 2014-15 amounting to ₹ 13,63,818/- as detailed below. FY Exempted sales/job work Value 6% reversal 2013-14 Exempted sales 1261606 75696 2014-15 Exempted sales 20102759 120166 2013-14 Job work 1146997 68820 2014-15 Job work 218931 13136 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... versal of proportionate credit along with interest availed on common input services would amount to non-availment of credit and hence, the demand under Rule 6(3)(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be sustained. He further submitted that reversal of proportionate credit is sufficient compliance of the provisions of Rule 6(3A). In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: Cranes Structural Engineers vs. CCE, Bangalore: 2017 (347) ELT 112 (Tri.-Bang.) CCE, Chennai-II vs. Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals Ltd.: 2017 (356) ELT 184 (Mad.) CCE, Puducherry vs. CESTAT, Chennai: 2015 (323) ELT 323 (Mad.) Global Pharmatech Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2011 (274) ELT 413 (Tri.-Chennai) CCE, Salem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nput services which is intended for manufacture of dutiable goods or providing exempted services. Clause (iii) of Rule 6 speaks about the situation where such manufacturer or service provider does not maintain separate accounts. The Rule provides for two options. This Rule was amended vide Notification No. 10/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2008 w.e.f. 1-4-2008. As per the new Rule, the manufacturer or service provider opting not to maintain separate account has to follow either of the following two options : (a) A manufacturer shall pay 10% (5% w.e.f. 7-7-2009) of sale price of the exempted goods and an output service provider shall pay 8% (6% w.e.f. 7-7-2009) of the value of the exempted services; or (b) Reverse the credit on inputs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 legal and proper. Moreover, the demand raised by the Revenue is also hit by limitation as the appellant reversed the pro rata credit with interest on 31-7-2010 itself and communicated to the Department whereas the show cause notice was issued only on 13-3-2012 which is beyond the period of one year and the allegation of the Department regarding suppression of fact is also not tenable because the appellant has disclosed these fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
