TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 804
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eable to nil rate of duty. The appellants availed a total credit of Rs. 54,01,113/- during the period July 2008 to June 2009. Since the appellant has not maintained separate records in respect of common services used for the excisable finished goods and exempted finished goods, revenue sought to recover an amount equal to 10% of the value of the exempted goods in terms of sub rule 6 (3) (i) of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, a demand of Rs. 2,32,23,720/- was raised against the appellant. It was also proposed to impose penalty under the provisions of Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The lower authorities confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty equal to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es Benz India Pvt. Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-1550-CESTAT-Mum. It was argued that in the said decision it has been held that Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit rules is not designed to collect the revenue from the appellants. It was argued that in the said decision it has been held that option given in Rule 6 (3) are designed to undo the effect of the input credit taken in respect of exempted goods. The learned Counsel argued that they are ready to pay the interest on the delayed reversal of credit, if any. 3. The learned AR relies on the impugned order. He argued that the language of the Rule is plain and simple and the Commissioner in his order has relied of the same. He also relied on decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ind Swift to asser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccordance with Rule 6 (3A) of Cenvat Credit Rules. With this act of the appellant, it is clear that the appellant opted for the option as provided under Rule 6(3)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, in accordance to which, the appellant are supposed to an amount equivalent to Cenvat Credit on input service attributed to the exempted service in terms of Rue 6(3A). In the present case, the appellant has availed Cenvat credit in respect of common input services, which has been used in relation to the manufacture of the final product as well as for trading of bought out cars. Therefore they are supposed to pay an amount equivalent to Cenvat credit which is attributed to the input service used for exempted service i.e. sale of car. In our view....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods or provider of output service; (ii) Date from which the option under this clause is exercised or proposed to be exercised; (iii) Description of dutiable goods or taxable services; (iv) Description of exempted goods or exempted services; (v) Cenvat credit of inputs and input services lying in balance as on the date of exercising the option under this condition. As per the submission of the appellant and perusal of their letter along with enclosed details, it is found that more or less all these particulars were intimated to the Jurisdictional Superintendent. The appellant has been filing their returns regularly on monthly basis to the department. On perusal of the copies of the such return sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... admittedly it is appellant who have on their own opted for option provided under Rule 6 (3) (ii). The meaning of the option as argued by the Ld. Sr. Counsel is that "option of right of choosing, something that may be or is chosen, choice, the act of choosing". From the said meaning of the term "option", it is clear that it, is the appellant who have liberty to decide which option to be exercised and not the Revenue to decide the same." It is clear from the above decision that Revenue is not at liberty to impose any of the options given in Rule 6 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, on the appellant. Even if the appellants failed to exercise the option and failed to follow due procedure, such failure does not take away substantial right of the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e amount that may be reversible, the Tribunal has issued directions accordingly. 7. In fact, the directions of the Tribunal primarily go to show that the direction was to re-determine the credit taken on common inputs and accept the offer to reverse such entire credit on common inputs insofar as they relate to demand proposed in the nine show cause notices. The Tribunal has also recorded the undertaking given by the respondent-assessee that if any further credit is to be reversed, the same shall be reversed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the communication from the Department. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the entire controversy has been decided by the Tribunal by merely remitt....