2015 (1) TMI 635

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....We take up the stay petition hearing with the consent of both sides. 2. After hearing the stay application, we find that the appeal itself may be taken up for hearing at this stage. Accordingly, after disposing the stay application, the appeal is taken up for hearing. 3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of dutiable goods viz. Printers falling under Heading No. 85.71 and exempted goods viz. Retail computer systems and set top boxes falling under Heading No. 84.71 and 85.25 respectively under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A Show Cause Notice dated 27.04.2006 was issued proposing demand of an amount of Rs. 1,24,05,146/-, being the amount of 10% of the va....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Guindy Division by report C. No. IV/16/94/09 Adj. dated 20.01.2011, contended that he has verified all the relevant records and the input service tax credit attributable to the exempted goods cleared during the impugned period and it works out to Rs. 16,64,309/-. The relevant portion of the verification report is reproduced in the adjudication order. It is seen from the Adjudication order that the appellant by their letter dated 07.01.2011 addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise stated that they are entitled to the benefit of Rule 6 (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. After considering the claim of the appellants under Rule 6(5) of the said Rules, the Adjudicating authority observed that as per the assessee's calculation, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. By letter dated 20.01.2011, the Assistant Commissioner informed that the input service credit attributable to the exempted goods cleared during the relevant period would be Rs. 16,64,309/- instead of Rs. 2,85,985/-. After accepting the claim of the appellants under Rule 6(5) of the said Rules, the Adjudicating authority reduced the amount to Rs. 4,33,778/-. We find that the verification report of the Assistant Commissioner was not disclosed to the appellants. The amount of Rs. 4,33,778/- as observed by the Adjudicating authority was also not informed to the assessees for compliance of the retrospective amendment under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010. In our considered view, the appellants sho....