TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otal amount of ₹ 5,42,914/- was reversed, which was the total credit availed on the common input service. Once proportionate credit is reversed along with interest if any arise due to delay, reversal of the demand under Rule 6(3)(ii) cannot be made - In the present case, though it appears that appellant have reversed the credit however, no evidence was produced regarding payment of interest. Since a part reversal was made after passing the order by original adjudicating authority, the correctness of the reversal was not verified by the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to reconsider the whole issue particularly, if it is found that the appellant have paid the Cenvat credit of attributed to common inp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Credit Rules. He placed reliance on the judgment passed by this tribunal in the case of CCE ST, Udaipur vs. Secure Meters Limited -2017 (354) ELT 146 (Tri. Delhi), which was upheld by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court reported at 2017 (354) ELT A32 (Raj.). and judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CGST and CX vs. Himmat Glazed Tiles 2018 (15) GSTL) 486 (Guj.). He submits that in view of the above judgments, it is settled that once the proportionate credit attributable to exempted service is debited, demand under Rule 6(3)(ii) will not sustain. 3. Shri K.J. Kinariwala, ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aying down that such reversal, even if subsequent to clearance of final product, is appropriate and result in a situation as if no credit was ever availed by the assessee. One such reference can be made to Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CCE v. Ashima Dyecot Ltd. [2008 (232) E.L.T. 580 (Guj.) = 2008 (12) S.T.R. 701 (Guj.)] affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court as reported at [2009 (240) E.L.T. A41 (S.C.)]. Inasmuch as the issue is decided, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, Revenue s appeal is rejected. (b) Mercedes Benz India (P) Limited vs. CCE, Pune 2015 (40) STR 381 (Tri. Mumbai). 5.5 As discussed above and in the facts of the case that actual Cenvat cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
