2017 (3) TMI 219

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aining separate account of inputs used for both excisable and exempt goods and, instead of complying with CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 requiring payment of 8% of value of exempted goods at the time of clearance, reversed, at the end of each year, the credit availed on inputs in such proportion as the output of exempt goods bore to total output. An amount of Rs. 2,20,707/- was sought to be recovered for the period from December 2004 to March 2007. Duty liability of Rs. 2,15,753/- was confirmed under section 11A with interest thereof under section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with rule 14 of Central Excise Rules, 2004 and penalty of Rs. 2,15,753/- was imposed under rule 15 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with section 11AC of Central ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cribed under any Statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor vs. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch.D 426 which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad vs. King Emperor 63 Indian Appeals 372=AIR 1936 PC 253 who stated as under: "Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all." This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh & Anr vs. State of Vindhya Pradesh 1954 SCR 1098 = AIR 1954 SC 322 and again in Deep Chand vs. State of Rajasthan 1962 (1) SCR 662 = AIR 1961 SC 1527. 32. These cases were considered by a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....set of products that are dutiable and another set that are exempted which deems a point of no return upon taking credit with deliberate intent despite being aware of the dichotomous utilisation of the common input and full awareness that rule 6 (3) (b) is the only available channel. Here the appellant manufactures only dutiable goods which may, in the hands of the buyer, become exempt and is conditional upon fulfilment of certain stipulations; obviously, if a certain percentage of the value is to be paid as duty equivalent and recovered from the buyer who is entitled to the exemption, the purpose of the exemption is defeated. Reversal of credit is a recognised means of denial of the facility to oneself and the noble sentiments articulated i....