2007 (12) TMI 125

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al Excise Act. The demand raised by the original authority was in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Under that Rule, a manufacturer of dutiable and exempted final products, who had not maintained separate inventory in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable product and those used in the manufacture of the exempted product, was required to pay 8% of the price (excluding tax) of the exempted goods. The original authority raised such demand on the assessee in adjudication of a show-cause notice. The appellate Commissioner set it aside after holding that Rule 6(3) (b) ibid was not attracted in the case. Hence the Revenue's appeal before us. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the vie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e price of the exempted product in the absence of separate inventory having been maintained in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of the exempted product and those used in the manufacture of the dutiable product. Relying on this decision, it is submitted by learned SDR that, as the assessee had admittedly not maintained separate accounts in respect of Hexane [common input for the dutiable final product viz, refined oil and the exempted by product viz. de-oiled cake], they had to pay 8% of the price of the de-oiled cake in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) ibid. Learned SDR has further pointed out that, in a case involving similar set of facts, the Hon'ble President of the Tribunal sitting singly followed the Larger Bench decision in Rallies Indi....