2018 (4) TMI 818

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Shri R.K. Mishra Jain, AR for the respondent Per B. Ravichandran 1. The appeal is against order 03/11/2016 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Alwar. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of fruit juice, mineral water etc liable to Central Excise duty. In respect of fruit juice based drinks, the appellant availed concessional duty of one percent in terms of Notification No. 1/2011 CE da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed in respect of the impugned goods for availing concession. For the period April, 2011 to March, 2013 for inputs they maintained separate records. In respect of input services they have determined proportionate credit attributable to the impugned final pro ducts and reverse the same. This they have intimated to the department periodically. On this basis referring to provisions of Sub - Rule (3D) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he month of March, 2011 the appellant categorically ascertained that they have maintained separate records both f o r inputs and input services and as such have not violated the said condition of the notification. We hold in that case there is no basis for denial for exemption. For the period April, 2011 to March, 2013 for inputs the appellants have maintained separate records. For input services ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....availing the exemption under Notification No. 01/2011 without adverting to the statutory provision of Sub - Rule (3D) of Rule 6 which was strongly contended by the appellant. No analysis of such defense has been made by the Original Authority. As such we find that the Original Authority fell in error in not considering the legal provisions as contended by the appellant. The impugned order, as it s....