2017 (4) TMI 1022

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a Beevi, C.S.] The issue involved in the above case is the confirmation of demand alleging that appellant has not maintained separate accounts for common input services used for manufacture of exempted and dutiable products for the period 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. 2. The Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants alleging that they had not maintained separate accounts. However, even prior to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n input services used both for manufacture or dutiable and exempted products to the tune of Rs. 25,32,810/- is to be reversed. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant by the Ld. Consultant Sh. Venkata Prasad, that appellant had reversed the proportionate credit along with the interest of Rs. 7,40,268/- even prior to issuance of Show Cause Notice. In spite of this, after adjudication the origina....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rvices. 4. Heard both sides. In the present case, the Commissioner has confirmed the entire credit availed on input services even though there is no allegation raised in the show cause notice for same. Therefore, the Commissioner has travelled beyond the show cause notice and on this ground itself the confirmation of entire credit on input services is not sustainable. Further, appellant is eligib....