TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it can be considered as compliance in terms of Rule 6(2) of CCR 2004? HELD THAT:- This issue was earlier discussed by this Bench with respect to the same appellant in the case of SHAKTI HORMANN PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCT, CE ST, MEDCHAL GST [ 2018 (12) TMI 426 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] and it came to the conclusion that the appellant is covered by Rule 6(2) of CCR 2004 and therefore need not reverse any amount under Rule 6(3A). Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Central Excise Appeal No. 30085 of 2019 - A/31100/2019 - Dated:- 2-12-2019 - HON BLE MR. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Lalit Mohan Chandna, Advocate for the appellant Shri N. Bhanu Kiran, Asst. Commissioner/AR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red. For this purpose they have taken CENVAT Credit periodically once in every six months or so, calculating the turnover of the taxable services and dutiable goods to the total turnover and availed CENVAT Credit which can be attributed to the input services which have gone into the provision of taxable services and clearance of excisable goods. This, according to the appellant, amounts to substantial compliance of Rule 6(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and therefore they are entitled to the CENVAT Credit. 3. The case of the department as argued vehemently by Ld. DR is that Rule 6(2) of CCR 2004 has a very specific mandate requiring the assessee to maintain separate records of receipt, utilisation and disposal of common ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be reproduced which is as under: 6(1) The CENVAT credit shall not be allowed on such quantity of input or input service which is used in the manufacture of exempted goods or for provision of exempted services, except in the circumstances mentioned in sub-rule(2). Provided that the CENVAT credit on inputs shall not be denied to job worker referred to in rule 12AA of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, on the ground that the said inputs are used in the manufacture of goods cleared without payment of duty under the provisions of that rule. 6(2) Where a manufacturer or provider of output service avails of CENVAT credit in respect of any inputs or input services, and manufactures such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment of the Tribunal in the case of Trans Asian Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is directly on the point and in para No. 6.1 it is held as under. 6.1 As submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, we find that the appellants have issued guidelines for their internal accounting purposes regarding the credit to be availed in respect of services rendered. They are taking the credit on services which are used wholly in taxable services as direct credit and the credit used in exempted services is being written off in the Profit and Loss Account. In case of input services which are used in taxable as well as exempted services, they are making the reversals at the end of the month. In view of the above, it is evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in Table-B . To this extent, the facts remained undisputed. Reversal of cenvat credit of ₹ 6,66,423/- taken by department in Table-B is also undisputed by Revenue. The only ground of denial of cenvat credit of ₹ 1,11,07,075/- is that the department in Table-B of appellant availed part of the cenvat credit earned by the department in Table-C . 9. A bare reading of sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (3) of the CCR 2004 makes clear that sub-rule (3) contains overriding provision which is independent in its nature irrespective of anything stated in sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) of CCR 2004. When sub-rule (2) is read that throws light that appellant has chosen a way of maintaining its record which enabled it to substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment in Table-B is reversed needs to be examined. The above cited two decisions of the Tribunal are directly on the point of Rule 6(2) which, I find, are applicable in the case in hand and applying the ratio as reproduced herein above of the decisions of the Tribunal, I hold on merits the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and I do so. 8. As regards the question of invoking the extended period in a situation wherein the records of the appellant were audited time and again by EA 2008 audit, I find that Ld. Counsel was correct in bringing to my knowledge that the Tribunal in the case of Sanjay Automobile Engineering Pvt. Ltd., following the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Karnatak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
