2018 (9) TMI 1671 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – common input services used in dutiable as well as exempted services – non-maintenance of separate records – Rule 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – whether the demand can sustain and when the appellant has not followed the requirement of intimating the department about availing the option as to Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004? – Held that:- The demand is made only because they did not intimate the department that they are availing the option. The said requirement is only a procedural requirement, the Tribunal in the case of Mercedes Benz [2015 (8) TMI 24 – CESTAT MUMBAI] has held that the demand cannot sustain for such procedural lapse – demand cannot sustain – appeal allo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
t maintained separate accounts as provided under Rule 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant had later reversed the proportionate credit availed on exempted services. The department was of the view that the appellant had not intimated to the department that they are availing the option of reversing the proportionate credit as Rule 6(3A). Hence show cause notice was issued demanding the credit pertaining to the exempted services along with interest and also for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed penalties. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Id. Counsel Shri Joseph Prabhakar submitted that the appellant had reversed the credit attributable to
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ides. 5. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the demand can sustain and when the appellant has not followed the requirement of intimating the department about availing the option as to Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It is submitted that the appellants have reversed the credit attributable to the exempted services. The demand is made only because they did not intimate the department that they are availing the option. The said requirement is only a procedural requirement, the Tribunal in the case of Mercedes Benz (supra) has held that the demand cannot sustain for such procedural lapse. Following the same, we are of the considered opinion that the demand cannot sustain. The impugned order is set aside and appeal is al
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =