TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 912X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was treated as an exempted service against which it cannot avail credits on inputs but the demand was solely based on the ground that out of two varieties of manufacturing waste, one is exempted from payment of Excise Duty for which demand is raised against non-reversal of the allegedly inadmissible credit availed on those exempted products and it is a settled principle of Law, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court through various decisions including that of MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-III [ 2015 (12) TMI 1598 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] , that duty is not payable on waste and scrap of packing material of inputs and demand is not sustainable if it had travelled beyond the Show-cause notice or m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty, it was not paying any duty at the time of clearance. Appellant is of the view that Respondent was supposed to follow Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and maintain separate records in respect of input and input services used in production of dutiable and exempted goods and it should have proportionately reversed CENVAT Credit involved on exempted waste in terms of Rule 6(3)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 but as it fail to do so, Show-cause cum demand notice proposing Service Tax and reversal of CENVAT Credit, through two Show-cause notice s covering period from May 2008 to July 2012 and August 2012 to June 2013, along with interest and penalty, was raised against the Appellant that had followed the adjudication process ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is liable to be set aside. 4. In response to such submissions, Learned Counsel for the Respondent Shri Anay Banhatti Advocate, submitted that Show-cause notice was issued on the ground that Appellant was a manufacturer who was also engaged in packing up/emptying inputs from packing material which is incidental or ancillary to the manufacturing process and therefore, it was required to pay Central Excise duty on clearance and sale of those waste and scrap of packing materials, but Appellant had raised a new ground before the Tribunal seeking its indulgence in reversing the order passed by the Commissioner that Respondent was engaged in providing exempted services like trading of goods, which was not alleged in the Show-cause notices. He fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eason that demand notice was issued under wrong provision of law but not on a different issue which was not at all available in the Show-cause notice. 5. We have carefully gone through the case record and the relied upon judgments. We are of the view that no demand is raised on the Appellant in the Show-cause notices on the ground that it was engaged in trading which was treated as an exempted service against which it cannot avail credits on inputs but the demand was solely based on the ground that out of two varieties of manufacturing waste, one is exempted from payment of Excise Duty for which demand is raised against non-reversal of the allegedly inadmissible credit availed on those exempted products and it is a settled principle of Law, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
