TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (8) TMI 19
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount of credit availed, on clearance of such 'Nil' rate paper as they were not maintaining separate accounts of the inputs. (b) On 9-1-2001, they filed a classification declaration and informed that they will be maintaining separate accounts of raw material i.e. for inputs and thus stopped payment of 8%. (c) On verification, it was found that the assessee on 13-2-2001 in formed the Range Officer that separate accounts for inputs, Enzyme and Trylon TCX, could not be kept separately since the quantities involved were very small and they would be reversing the Cenvat credit on their two inputs on pro-rata basis. (d) During the period April, 2002 to June, 2002, on the 1283.515 MTs of such 'Nil' rate paper cleared, 8% amount reversed was no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch go into the dutiable arid exempted goods. The S.C. decision in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur, [1996 (81) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)1, has stipulated that if reversal of credit taken was permissible, then it shall be a situation of no credit availed/taken. (b) This Tribunal in case of Roches Watches Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur [2003 (152) E.L.T. 420], while interpreting the similar requirements as under CEGAT Rule 6, as in Rule 57CC of the erstwhile Modvat Rules stipulating 8% amount reversal of value of excise exempt common products, has followed the law as laid down in Chandarpur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. [1996 (81) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] and has held that on reversal of credit initially availed/taken will result in no credit taken on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... used in the pulp manufactured and cleared was effected. (b) The liability of Rs. 75,21,790/- at 8% rate of amount has been worked out after allowing the deduction of Rs. 15,79,580/- attributable to inputs whose separate inventory could not be maintained and which was ready reversed. The 8% calculation on the value by applying the formula of 115% of the cost of production as per Rule 9, read with Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2002 on the reason that M/s. APR Packaging Ltd. was a related person. (c) For the reasons and findings as arrived at herein above in appeal No. 1818/04, we find that the law as laid down in Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur, [1996 (81) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)], would be squarely applicable in this case as keep....