TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....985 respectively. Further, it is stated that the Gear Box Assembly and Gear Motor Assembly manufactured by the petitioner's company would suffer payment of Excise Duty and the Government had also granted exemption from payment of Excise Duty, inter alia, for components and parts of Wind Operated Electricity Generator under notification No.6/2006-CE, dated 01.03.2006. Whileso, the petitioner's company had imported certain materials, like, Gaskets, Level Plug, Oil Seal, to use the same for manufacturing process of Gear Box Assembly and Gear Motor Assembly, by availing Cenvat Credit of the Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) paid on the raw materials and components under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "CCR, 2004). While....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....but pay an amount of 10% (now 5%) on the value of exempt products. c) Compute the actual amount of Cenvat Credit relating to the exempt product and reverse that amount of credit which is proportionate to the value of exempt product as per the formula given in Rule 6 of CCR, 2004. 3. The petitioner, by following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (1996 (81) ELT 3 (SC)), said to have reversed the proportionate amount of Cenvat Credit attributable to the exempted goods for the period from February, 2008 to December, 2008, which works out to Rs.97,85,380/-. But, the respondent opposed the said method on the premise that the petitioner had not maintained separate reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had remanded the matter back to the respondent with a direction to consider the matter afresh in the light of the amendment made in Rule 6 of CCR, 2004. Thereafter, the respondent after granting a personal hearing to the petitioner, passed the present impugned order confirming the entire demand of differential Excise Duty of Rs.1,00,28,716/- and the penalty of Rs.5,00,000/-. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenging the correctness of the impugned order contended that the impugned order is ex-facie illegal for the reason that the period in dispute being February, 2008 to December, 2008, the respondent had adjudicated the matter only for the period February, 2008 and March, 2008 and confirmed the demand as per th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any are engaged in the manufacture of Gear Box Assembly and Gear Motor Assembly falling under the Chapter Heading No.8483 9000 and 8501 3210 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, respectively. They are also availing Cenvat credit of the Central Excise Duties paid on inputs, capital goods and Service Tax paid on input services under CCR, 2004. When they are clearing their finished goods on payment of duty to certain customers, they are also clearing the Gear Box Assembly without payment of duty for use in the Wind Mill Generators by availing the exemption available under notification No.6/2002-EC, dated 01.03.2002. But, they do not maintain separate accounts of raw materials. If any person, who is availing Cenvat Credit for the inputs and clea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... present writ petition. Therefore, the short issue raised in the present writ petition is when the Tribunal, by setting aside the demand for the entire period in dispute, namely, from February, 2008 to December, 2008, remanded the matter back to the respondent, the respondent, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, proceeded to confirm the demand for the period from April, 2008 to December, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded before this Court that when there was a direction given by the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter afresh, the respondent took a stand that the demand for the period from April, 2008 to December, 2008, which is subject matter of the show cause notice No.24/2009, dated 05.03.2009, need not be adjudi....