2016 (8) TMI 387

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t case are that the appellants is a partnership concern inter alia engaged in the manufacture of cranes/crane un-loaders, crane bridges and trollies and crane stares falling under the Chapter Heading 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The appellant cleared two cranes at nil rate of duty vide invoice dated 17.10.2008 and 13.11.2008 by availing the benefit of Notification No.33/2005-C.E. dated 8.9.2005 as amended vide Notification No.38/2005-C.E dated 30.12.2005. During the audit, an objection was raised requiring the appellant to pay 10% of the amount as per Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 on the ground that the appellant herein had not maintained separate books of accounts and also did not exercise the option as provided in R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....est and penalties as upheld in the impugned order is hit by limitation/time bar as the charges of suppression cannot be sustained at all as the appellant has disclosed the clearance of two cranes in their periodical ER1 returns and the demand could not have been made by alleging suppression and invoking the extended period of limitation, particularly when the whole issue pertains to interpretation of requirement/conditions as contained in Rule 6 of CCR, 2004. He also submitted that the show-cause notice in this case has been issued only on 13.3.2012 (for the reversal of pro rata credit with interest already made and communicated on 31.7.2010 itself) which would be beyond the normal period of limitation in support of this submission, he reli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....be taken only on that quantity of input or input services which is intended for manufacture of dutiable goods or providing exempted services. Sub-rule (iii) of Rule 6 speaks about the situation where such manufacturer or service provider does not maintain separate accounts. The Rule provides for two options. This Rule was amended vide Notification No.10/2008-C.E. (NT) dated 1.3.2008 w.e.f. 1.4.2008. As per the new Rule, the manufacturer or service provider opting not to maintain separate account has to follow either of the following two option: a) A manufacturer shall pay 10% (5% w.e.f. 07/07/2009) of sale price of the exempted goods and an output service provider shall pay 8% (6% w.e.f. 07/07/2009) of the value of the exempted ser....