TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....23/01/2012. Both the appeals have identical issues. Hence they are disposed by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The brief fats of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters, mineral water, fruit pulp based drink (SLICE), soda etc. Out of the above products, fruit pulp based drink (SLICE) is exempt from payment of duty and other are dutiable. According to Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), and assessee is required to maintain separate accounts in respect of inputs and input services used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted products. In case of failure, the assessee is required to pay 5%/10% of the value of the exempted goods. On the ground that the appellant was not maintain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame whether it has been used for SLICE or dutiable products. Further, he also submits that since the clearance of SLICE is only about 10 to 15% during the period and stock of old plastic crates was more than 65% of the total stock of total crates, it cannot be said that new crates on which credit has been taken is used even going by the proportion basis. However, he also submits that in the show-cause notice, and allegation was made that Departmental officers had made enquiries with the stores/shipping departments of the appellant to check up whether those departments are identifying the plastic crates separately for the purpose of dutiable and exempted goods. However, no statements were recorded from any of the persons concerned in the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l and therefore, it cannot be said that the Department was not aware of the fat. Further, he also submits that on furnace oil alone, the show-cause notice issued has been dropped by the Commissioner(Appeals) and Department is in appeal against that decision on the ground that proportionate reversal is not provided under the Rules without distinguishing the judicial precedents relied upon by the Commissioner(appeals). 5. The learned AR for the Department would submit that he is not contesting the claim of the appellant as regards furnace oil and input services at this stage, since in his view, even if in respect of one input, if the procedure is not followed, the appellant would be required to pay 05%/10% as per Rule 6(3) of CCR. He would r....