Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee was liable to reverse 8% of the price of exempted goods under Rule 57CC/57AD of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, despite maintaining separate records and reversing proportionate credit in stray cases of common inputs, and whether the demand could be sustained on the ground of suppression.
Analysis: The records showed that the assessee maintained separate accounts for inputs used in dutiable and exempted products through Form IV, RG 23A, Bin Cards and Batch Cards, and that duty credit was not taken on inputs used exclusively for exempted goods. In the stray instances where common inputs were used, proportionate Modvat/Cenvat credit was reversed. The Department did not rebut the factual findings relied upon by the Commissioner. On that basis, the requirement of maintaining separate inventory and accounts was treated as substantially complied with, and the invocation of an automatic 8% reversal on all exempted clearances was found unjustified. The materials also showed that the reversals were disclosed in the records filed with the Department, negativing suppression.
Conclusion: The assessee was not liable to reverse 8% of the price of exempted goods, and the demand based on suppression was not sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee substantially complies with the requirement of maintaining separate accounts for exempted and dutiable goods and reverses proportionate credit on common inputs, full reversal of 8% on all exempted clearances is not warranted.