9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utilizing their Cenvat credit account. In the year 2007, the appellant started manufacturing one of the final product which was exempt payment of duty but was availing Cenvat credit on input and input services which has been used for manufacture of dutiable as well as the exempted goods. in terms of Rule 6(3) of Central Excise Rules, 2004, if the assessee is availing Cenvat credit on input and input services for manufacture of dutiable as well as the exempted goods, the assessee is required to pay 10% of the valuable exempted goods but the appellant did not opted either to take proportionate the Cenvat credit or to pay 10% of the valuable exempted goods and continued to avail Cenvat on common input and input services. An audit was conducted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir undertaking therefore, the show cause notice was issued by invoking the extended period of limitation. 5. In revertal arguments advanced by Ld. AR, the Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Binjrajka Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Hyderabad-III reported in 2016 E.L.T. 302 (Tri.-Hyd.) and C.C.E & C.Vadodara-II Vs. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Ltd. reported in 2012 (285) E.L.T. 336 (Guj.) to say that demands are barred by limitation. 6. Heard the parties, considered submission. 7. On the merits of the case, there is no dispute that the appellant is not entitled to avail Cenvat credit on common input/input services to be used in manufacture of exempted as well as dutiable goods in terms o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the year 2008 and no objection was raised above availment of Cenvat credit, therefore, for the period upto one year prior to the audit report conducted in 2010 that is prior to one year from 17.05.2010, the appellant is liable to either reverse the Cenvat credit attributable to input and input services used for exempted goods or liable to pay 10% of the valuable exempted goods. 9. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied on the various jurisdictional pronouncement as cited here in above in preceding paragraphs, those decision are not applicable to the facts of this case as in the case of M/s Binjrajka Steel Tubes Ltd. (Supra), the assessee did not pay any amount and was not asked to pay any amount, further, in the case of Gujarat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
