2016 (7) TMI 1026

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapters 28 & 29 of CETA,1985. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 10th March 2006, alleging wrong availment of Cenvat Credit on Furnace Oil used as fuel and other inputs used in the generation of electricity, which in turn utilized in the manufacture of dutiable goods as well as exempted/non-excisable goods. It was alleged that the appellant had not maintained separate records for these inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted/non-excisable products as required under the relevant Rules. Consequently, proportionate Cenvat Credit involved on the fuel amounting to Rs. 20,30,378/- for the perio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt, however, the respondent had succeeded on limitation before the Ld Commissioner (Appeals), which has not been challenged by the Revenue. It is his contention that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked against the respondent in view of conflicting decisions on the subject at the relevant time and there had been no suppression of facts in as much as in absence of any statutory requirement making it mandatory on the part of an assessee, to maintain separate accounts, for input-fuels used in the generation of electricity on which Cenvat Credit has been availed which in turn used both in or in relation to the manufacture of dutiable goods and exempted/ non-excisable products. Therefore, the respondent has a strong case on limitation....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eclaration. They further contended that when the provisions of Rue 57 AD of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 6(1),(2) and (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 are excluded to maintain separate accounts for inputs used as fuel, they have not maintained the separate accounts of such inputs. Therefore, the Department allegation regarding the appellant has not maintained separate accounts for such inputs and hence the appellant has suppressed the facts, has no legal force, as the appellant has not required to maintain separate accounts for such inputs because the same is excluded by the legal provisions during the relevant period,. Therefore, order for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Exci....