2025 (2) TMI 555

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... urers of computer stationery. They are manufacturing both dutiable and exempted goods. They are availing CENVAT credit on inputs / capital goods as well as the service tax paid on various input services as per CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. On verification of the records of the appellant, it appeared that for the years 2008 - 09 and 2009 - 2010, the appellant had availed CENVAT credit on certain input services which includes Goods Transport by Road (Freight Inward), Security Agency Services, Management, Maintenance or repair service for goods, equipments or properties, Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service and Business Support Service. Department alleges that the appellants are entitled to take credit in respect of only two services nam .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rule 3 of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules do not follow. The Ld. Counsel submitted that under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, a manufacturer of the goods or provider of output service opting not to maintain separate accounts has three options and once such option is reversal of the credit calculated in terms of sub-rule (a) to that Rule. It is submitted that sub rule 3 (a) requires the manufacturer to exercise such option in writing. In as much as appellant has already exercised this right for the inputs by reversing credit on the basis of the formula enshrined in Rule 3(a) The Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant had already elected to operate under this rule for the purposes of CENVAT credit Rules. Once the appellant has elect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd too, the demand in excess of the loss sustained, if at all. He prayed hat the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 3.2 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the respondent reiterated the findings of the authorities below. 4. We have heard both sides. It is observed that the appellant has reversed the credit involved on the exempted products and have also paid the interest due. The fact that the excess availed is only Rs 4,03,509/- has not been contested by the Ld. Original Authority. He however felt that the proper procedure had not been followed and demanded the amount payable in terms of Rule 6(3)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 5. We find that the whole issue is procedural in nature and while the appellant was required to foll .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X