2017 (7) TMI 592

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....are that the appellant-assessee was engaged in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted products. In the manufacture of said products, common inputs had been used on which CENVAT credit was availed by the assessee. Alleging that the assessee was required to discharge 8% of the value of exempted product as they failed to maintain separate accounts, a show cause notice was issued to them for recovery of the said amount of Rs. 27,55,291/- for the period April 2000 to February 2001. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with penalty of Rs. 3.00 lakhs under Rule 173Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The assessee thereafter filed an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and the matter was under litigation, in the meantime, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nasmuch as, the inputs which were exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted products even though not common inputs was included in the said amount. It is his contention that in their grounds of appeal, the liability at best would be around Rs. 4.00 lakhs and not Rs. 12,21,396/- as confirmed in the impugned order. Further, he submits that since the order being not communicated within two months, from the date of application, therefore, directing reversal of the amount of Rs. 12,21,396/- also cannot be sustained. It is his further contention that the Commissioner's Order is beyond the notice, hence not sustainable. 6. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterating the grounds of appeal has submitted that the assessee is not entitled to the....