2014 (7) TMI 925

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant-assessee filed an appeal challenging the order dated 3rd October, 2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-I. 3] The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had, in the order passed by him concluded at a prima facie stage itself that the appellants are not entitled to a complete waiver of the condition of predeposit. There cannot be unconditional stay of recovery of the duty amount. In these circumstances, at the prima facie stage, though a detailed order has been passed, what the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) held is that it would be reasonable to direct the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 24,00,000/-and to report compliance. Against this order, the matter was carried in Appeal by the as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....il of the said exemption. In other words, the appellant was rendering both taxable services as well as exempted services. Therefore, he was required to maintain separate accounts for the common inputs and input services used in providing the output services which was not done. Further, there was a cap of 20% with respect to availment of input service tax credit under rule 6(3)(c) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which the appellant has violated. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant has contravened the provisions of sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the Ind-Swift case (cited supra) considered the interpretation of the word 'taken or utilised' appearing in Rul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....controversy in such particulars as possibly highlighted. Even if, the Tribunal has rendered a conclusion on the merits that we do not find to have been adequately clarified. The only submission in these two paragraphs which indicates that the Tribunal has taken a prima facie view is that the appellant has not made out any case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of the dues adjudged, that prior thereto, observations have been made and with regard to the applicability and contravention of the provisions of sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law. The impugned order is quashed and set a....