TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 346
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appeal. 2. In a show-cause notice dt. 23/08/2010 issued to the appellant, the Department had alleged that they were manufacturing and clearing both dutiable goods and exempted goods and were also providing taxable output services during the material period, that certain input services received by them were used both in the manufacture of exempted goods and for providing the output services, that the credit of service tax paid on such input services were utilized for payment of service tax on the output services, that separate accounts were not maintained for receipt, consumption and utilization of input services in the manufacture of exempted goods and for providing output services, that the appellant thereby contravened the provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TIOL-569-HC-CX]. The impugned order was passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax in adjudication of this dispute. 3. When this matter came up before us on the last occasion, submissions were made from both sides with reference to paragraphs 48 to 51 of the Commissioner's order, reproduced below: 48. The Finance Act, 2010 has made amendments of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the same is amended retrospectively. As per the said amendment the person who opts to pay the amount in accordance with the provisions as amended shall pay the amount along with interest specified and make application to the Commissioner of Central Excise along with documentary evidence and a certificate from a chartered accountant or a cost accountant, certi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 14 of cenvat credit rules, 2004 merits confirmation. 4. The learned consultant for the appellant had vehemently contested the findings recorded in para 50 ibid. Ground No.4 of the appeal was pressed before us. This ground reads thus: 4. The appellant submits that they had already filed application in terms of Finance Act, 2010 before the Commissioner of Central Excise as well as Commissioner of Service Tax after payment of proportionate amount of CENVAT Credit along with interest seeking to drop the proceedings initiated under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on 04.11.2010. However the impugned order considered the date of filing an application as 09.11.2010, instead of 04.11.2010, which was f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioners Office. As per their Tappal register, the said letter number 1478 was handed over to the Superintendent, Adjudication Section on 09/11/2010. A copy of the Commissioner's register dated 09/11/2010 projecting the said letter is enclosed herewith for kind reference and necessary action. The above letter confirms that the appellant's application referred to in ground 4 ibid was received in the Commissionerate of Service Tax on 04/11/2010. The learned Commissioner (AR) also fairly concedes the position. 6. Sub-rule 7 of Rule 6 of the CCR, 2004, the benefit of which is being claimed by the appellant, reads as follows:- (7). Where a dispute relating to adjustment of credit on inputs or input services used in or in relation to exem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10. According to the adjudicating authority, the appellant should have filed the application on or before 08/11/2010, regarding which there is no dispute. However, the finding of the adjudicating authority that the appellant filed the application on 09/11/2010 is under challenge. We note that this challenge is bound to succeed in the light of the report of the learned Commissioner(AR). The appellant had in fact filed their application with the Commissioner of Service Tax on 04/11/2010 within the prescribed period of 6 months. Had it been transmitted at once to the Commissioner of Central Excise, it would probably have been received at his end also within the said period. In any case, the purpose of the beneficial provisions of Rule 6(7) ibi....