TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 333
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... well as dutiable final products, 10% of the value of the exempted goods has been demanded under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The demand is for the period from January 2005 to March 2008 and a penalty equivalent to amount demanded has also been imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 and interest as applicable has also been demanded. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits very fairly that the issue appears to be fully covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of CCE v. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. [2009 (244) E.L.T. 321 (Bom)]. He submits that in terms of this decision, reversal of proportionate credit with interest attributable to exempted products ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e fulfilled the requirement of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He also submits that the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Nicholas Piramal India Ltd., cited above also has not discussed this aspect as far as input services are concerned. The decision in the case of Nicholas Piramal India Ltd., (supra) was considering only availment of Cenvat credit on inputs. In view of the differentiation between inputs and inputs service in the Rule, the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court does not apply in their case. In any case, he submits that according to the work sheet prepared by them, the amount of credit reversible within the limitation period comes to around Rs. 20 lakhs for the purpose of pre-deposit and for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the light of the several decisions, which have been rendered already in respect of the maintenance of separate accounts. In most of the decisions, which have considered this Rule in the past have proceeded on the assumption that separate accounts are required to be maintained in respect of inputs as well as inputs services. This is a totally new ground, which has been taken and which would be required to be examined during final hearing. Further, we also take note of the fact that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision may not be applicable since the Hon'ble High Court was considering only inputs. Therefore, it cannot be said that Hon'ble High Court have considered all aspects as regards the maintenance of separate accounts in respect of i....