TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 903
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The present appeal has been filed by the appellant from the impugned order dated 8.2.2018 passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise- Jaipur-I (Appeal). 2. The issue involved in this Appeal is whether the appellant was required to pay 6% of amount of value of exempted goods cleared by them as they did not maintain separate record for input services? 3. The ld. consultant for the Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Department for excercising the option available under Rule 6 (3) of CCR, 2004 towards non-maintenance of separate records as envisaged under Rule 6 (2) of CCR, 2004. The ld. AR appearing for the department reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and prayed for the dismissal of Appeal. 4. I have heard ld. Consultant for the Appellant and ld. AR for the department and have also peru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntimation is not available with the range office and is not a part of office records. To check the authenticity of assessee's claims, entry in the "letter receipt register" maintained in this office was verified. There was no entry of the claimed intimation letter in the letter receipt register on 02.04.2012, which proves that the intimation was not provided to this office. 19. What is more gra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en extracted by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order in paragraph 3, but there is no finding on the said issue in the impugned order. 6. According to me the preliminary issue raised by the Appellant is very relevant and has a bearing on the matter since the entire case of the department is revolving around not communicating the option by the Appellant to the department as per Rule....