2017 (11) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat, during the period under consideration, the assessee-Respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Bulk Drugs & P.P. Medicines falling under First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing proportionate credit on various inputs and input services used in the manufacture of dutiable products. The Department issued a show cause notice classifying the goods under Chapter Heading 2939 2090. But by the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has given relief to the assessee-Respondents by classifying the same under 2942 0090 as claimed by the assessee-Respondents. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 3. With this background, we have heard Shri R.K. Mishra, learned DR for the Revenue and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....equal to 10% of sale value of the exempted final product would be applicable. 6.1. In our view w.e.f. 1-3-2008 Rule 6(3) had been amended to give an additional option to a manufacturer manufacturing dutiable as well as exempting final product by using common Cenvat credit availed input/input services and this additional option was to reverse the proportionate Cenvat credit attributable to input/input services used in or in relation to manufacture of exempted final product. The proportionate amount of Cenvat credit attributable to the input/input services used in or in relation to manufacture of exempted final product was to be calculated as per the formula prescribed in Rule 6(3A). By Finance Act, 2010, the above provisions were made ret....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the period when the retrospective amendment to Rule 6(3) by Finance Act, 2010 had not been made and hence, this judgment of Hon'ble High Court is not applicable to the facts of this case. In view of the retrospective amendment introduced by Finance Act, 2010, the appellant were entitled to reverse the proportionate Cenvat credit attributable to the quantum of input services used in or in relation to manufacture of exempted final product and by foregoing this credit, they have complied with this obligation. In view of this the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed." 5. By following our earlier order (supra), we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and the same is hereby sustaine....