TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 575
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent. Per: B. Ravichandran: The appeal is against the order dated 11.09.2012 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of non ferrous metals like zinc, lead, cadmium, silver etc. The raw material required is ore which is mined from various captive mines of the appellant. "Ore and concentrates" are dutiable products but were exempted under Noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... liability arises. However, the department proceeded against the appellant on the ground that they have not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 6 and accordingly they are liable to pay 5% of value of exempted goods in terms of provisions of Rule 6 (3) of Cenvat credit Rules, 2004. The original authority vide his impugned order confirmed the demand for Rs. 2,41,52,732/-. 2. Ld. Counsel fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The admitted facts are that the appellants were reversing credit on inputs attributable to the exempted final product on a monthly basis. However, for input services they have reversed the proportionate credit only in the month of March, 2011. We note that the original authority confirmed the present demand only on the ground that the appellant did not file due i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are already available in the records of the Revenue. We further find it is an admitted fact that the assessee herein have calculated the CENVAT Credit in terms of clause (c) read with clause (h) and have deposited the amount so determined, by 30th June in the succeeding financial year as prescribed." 4. In the present case, the impugned order clearly records that the appellant reversed the credit....