TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puts intended for use in the manufacture of dutiable goods. This is as per Rule 6(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. However, it is not always possible for a manufacturer to maintain separate accounts. Thus, the manufacturer need not maintain separate accounts, but he should pay 8% of the price of the exempted final products. This is as per Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. A careful reading of Rule 6(3) shows that the manufacturer has the option not to maintain separate accounts. In other words, the manufacturer can choose not to maintain separate accounts and pay 8% of the price of exempted final products. When the manufacturer does that, he is perfectly complying with the Cenvat Credit Rules. In the present case, Revenue has seiz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had to be cleared on payment of duty of 16%. Since the appellants used inputs for dutiable and exempted goods in terms of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, they reversed 8% of the sale value of the exempted goods but the Revenue proceeded against the appellants on the ground that the appellants maintained separate accounts of inputs used in the manufacture of exempted and dutiable goods and, therefore, they were not entitled for the Cenvat Credit in respect of the inputs used in the exempted goods. Consequently, the Adjudicating Authority denied Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 6,67,68,489/-. Interest under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11AB of the CE Rules was denied. A penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uct. Therefore, the Revenue cannot bring the appellant within the purview of Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules in the light of the Apex Court decision in A.V. Fernandas v. State of Kerala - 1957 (8) STC 561. (iii) The Adjudicating Authority arbitrarily picked up rough, ad-hoc and incomplete registers, notebooks and has held that they are separate records in terms of Rule 6(2). There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the figures arrived in the computer print out as per Annexure IV to the Show Cause Notice is based on the seized records. (iv) In view of the above submissions, he requested to set aside the OIO. 5. The learned SDR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner in OIO. 6. We have gone through the records of the case car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
