2017 (8) TMI 469

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Parv Agarwal For the Respondent : Nishant Mishra, Kartikya Narain ORDER Heard Sri Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the Central Excise and Sri Nishant Mishra and Sri Kartikeya, learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent is manufacturing ceramic tiles and is trading the same. The respondent availed CENVAT Credit on common input services for the period January, 2011 to March, 201....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Notification No.13 of 2011 dated 31st March, 2011 and it was enhanced to 6% of the value of the goods with no other charge. The Notification No.28 of 2012 dated 20th June, 2012 enforced w.e.f. 1st July, 2012 maintained the above rate. The respondent was served with a show cause notice dated 17.10.2012 requiring to show cause as to why CENVAT Credit of Rs. 45,03,115/- availed by it during th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rules") as amended by the aforesaid notifications lays down for the payment of 6% of the value of the goods being the difference between sale and purchase price of the goods traded or 10% of the cost of the goods sold, whichever is more. The provision for payment of the aforesaid amount in view of not maintaining separate books of accounts was enforced vide Notification No.13 of 2011 dated 31st....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n come into existence w.e.f. 1st April, 2011 in extended the benefit accordingly. In view of the above, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal. Sri Parv Agarwal next argued that the matter requires to be remanded inasmuch as calculation of 6% of the value of the goods or 10% of the cost of the goods sold is to be worked out. In this regard, we do not find any ....