2018 (5) TMI 1048

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 exempted goods cleared using common inputs and input services. It was the case of Revenue in the show cause notice that during the period in question i.e. October 2013 to April 2015 the respondent had availed CENVAT credit on common inputs and input services and cleared dutiable as well as exempted and did not opt for any of the options available under Rule 6 and did not maintain separate account, hence the provisions mandate for reversal of 6% of the value of the exempted goods was cleared. Respondent herein reversed the entire CENVAT credit availed on such common input services and brought to the knowledge of the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority did not agree with the contentions raised and confirmed the demands ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... credit attributable to the common inputs and input services, the question of confirmation of an amount under Rule 6(3) does not arise. I find that issue is covered by the ratio which has been laid down in the case of Jost's Engineering Co. Ltd (supra) (in paragraph 5.2) which is reproduced: "5.2 In the present case it is an admitted fact the appellant did not maintain separate accounts for the input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of product dutiable as well as exempted products even though they maintained such accounts in respect of inputs. Therefore, two options were available to them, i.e., either to pay 5%/ 10% of value of the exempted goods or pay an amount equal to the credit attributable to the input servic....