Mahavir Spinning Mills Versus Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, Ludhiana
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 245 – CESTAT CHANDIGARH – TMI
CESTAT CHANDIGARH – AT
Dated:- 1-6-2018
E/60303/2018 – FINAL ORDER NO: 62441/2018
Central Excise
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Shri. Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate- for the appellant
Shri. A.K. Saini, AR- for the respondent
ORDER
Per Ashok Jindal:
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein a demand at the rate of 6% of the value of exempted goods has been confirmed against them on the ground that the appellant is not maintaining separate account of inputs for manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of 100% Grey Cotton Textile Yarn. The appellant is adopting method by selling their goods under Notification No. 29/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 on payment of duty and under Notification No. 30/2004- CE dated 09.07.2004 without payment of duty.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ods cleared under Notification No. 29/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 on proportionate basis and no cenvat credit has been taken by the appellant on the inputs used in manufacture of goods cleared under Notification No. 30/2004 dated 09.07.2004 and waste. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any amount in terms of Rules 6 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
4. On the other hand, the ld. AR reiterated the finding in the impugned order.
5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.
6. On perusal of the record, I find that in the show cause notice the only allegation against the appellant is that they are not maintaining separate account of inputs used in dutiable as well as exempted final goods, therefore, in terms of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, they are required to pay an amount equal to 6% of the value of waste cleared at nil rate of duty. In such a situation, the CBEC has issued Circular No. 845/3/2007-CE dated 01.02.2007 which clarifies the position as u
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ared at nil rate of duty. In the impugned order also, the ld. Commissioner (A) has not given any finding to the claim made by the appellant that they are availing proportionate cenvat credit of inputs used in manufacture goods at the end of the month.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is required to be examined by the authorities below whether the appellant is availing proportionate cenvat credit of inputs at the end of the month which has been used in manufacture of dutiable goods and the same has not been denied by the authorities below. In that circumstances, the claim of the appellant has been proved that they have taken the cenvat credit proportionate to inputs used in manufacture of dutiable goods. In that circumstances, the appellant is not required to reverse any amount or pay 6% of the value of waste cleared at the rate of nil rate of duty, therefore, the impugned order is set aside.
In result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictat
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =