2016 (2) TMI 361

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ade fabrics. They were operating under Notification No.29/2004-CE and 30/2004-CE both dated 9.7.2004. The appellants were clearing dutiable as well as exempted products from their unit and were also availing credit of service tax paid on input service. The appellants did not maintain separate account as provided under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the department therefore observed that the credit availed on the input service was not admissible to the appellants. The Range Superintendent vide letter dated 9.8.2007 informed the same to the appellants. On pointing out the defects, the appellants reversed the credit amount of Rs. 65,21,123/- pertaining to the period January, 2007 to March, 2007 under protest on 17.10.2007. In view of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... He drew our attention to the letter dated 4.7.2006 issued by the appellant to the department informing the department the intention of the appellant to make clearance under Notification No.29/2004-CE and 30/2004-CE both dated 9.7.2004. In this letter, the appellants also informed the department the manner of taking credit on inputs, capital goods and input service. Further, on request of the department, the appellants furnished month wise details of credit availed by them during the disputed period. He urged that there was no suppression of facts or wilful mis-statement and the imposition of penalty is totally unjustified. 5. Against this, learned DR Shri R.K.Mishra, reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He argued that the appell....