Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 pay 8% of the price of the goods cleared under Notification No. 214/86-CE for not maintaining separate records of common inputs, or whether proportionate reversal of credit was sufficient compliance.
Analysis: The assessee was manufacturing dutiable goods as well as undertaking job work cleared under Notification No. 214/86-CE, and was reversing the credit attributable to inputs used in the job-work goods. The dispute turned on whether Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules required payment of 8% of the price of exempted goods merely because separate records were not maintained. The decision noted that Rule 57 was retrospectively amended by the Finance Act, 2010 to recognise that proportionate reversal of credit in respect of inputs used in goods cleared at nil rate of duty is sufficient.
Conclusion: The assessee was not liable to pay 8% under Rule 57CC, and proportionate reversal of credit was sufficient. The appeals were rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where credit attributable to inputs used in exempted or nil-rated clearances is proportionately reversed, demand of a fixed percentage under Rule 57CC is not sustainable merely for want of separate records.