2009 (5) TMI 585

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the Appellant. Shri P.K. Agarwal, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - After examining the records and hearing both sides, I note that the appellants have been required to pay duty of Rs. 3,96,852/- and equal amount of penalty for the period April 2006 to March 2007. The present application seeks waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of these amounts. During the materi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mon input services, the appellate authority has maintained that they are required to pay 10% of the value of the exempted final product as above. According to the learned counsel, it was not possible for the assessee to maintain separate accounts and, therefore, they did what was possible, i.e. they reversed Cenvat credit on pro rata basis. In the circumstances, the demand is unsustainable. As aga....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....duction and the amounts of inputs and input services for the previous year. In this connection, the submission of the learned SDR is that it was very much open to the assessee to follow the above procedure of provisional payment for every month followed by finalisation of the correct amount to be paid for such month. Instead, they chose to proceed on pro rata basis. 2. After giving careful....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ferential amount shall be paid. This procedure is in vogue from 2008. It appears, prior to 2008, there was no viable procedure or workable formula to enable manufacturers of dutiable and exempted final products to take correct amount of Cenvat credit on common input services. In this scenario, it is relevant to take note of a basic tenet of law, which is to the effect that no law shall require a p....