2018 (12) TMI 1041

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ords by the Audit, it was found that appellant had taken CENVAT Credit on common input services which were used for both taxable and exempted services. It was also found that they have not maintained separate accounts as required under Rule 6 (2) of CCR 2004 nor have they reversed the proportionate credit or an amount equivalent to 6% of the exempted services as required under Rule 6(3) of CCR 2004. Some other discrepancies were also noticed and a show cause notice was issued to the appellant calling upon to explain as to why- a) An amount of Rs. 18,90,121/- @ 6% of the value exempted services should not be demanded from them as per Rule 6(3)(i) under Rule 14 of CCR 2004 read with the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 5,26,742/-, since the assessee has agreed to these demands and paid the same along with interest and therefore the lower authority should have confirmed the demands and appropriated the amounts paid against the demands instead of dropping the demand on these two issues. He, therefore, modified the order with respect to these two demands. (iii) With regard to the availment of irregular CENVAT Credit of Rs. 2,93,730/-, he found that Revenue has appealed against dropping of Rs. 2,62,840/- only of which an amount of Rs. 2,16,972/- was with respect to credit on health and life insurance policies for the employees and held that credit on these services were not admissible. He rejected the Revenue's appeal with respect to Rs. 45,868/-. 3. I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....- and therefore should be considered as common input services. The appellant could have reversed the proportionate amount of common input service credit availed attributable to the exempted projects but they failed to do so. They are, therefore, required to pay an amount @ 6% of the value of the exempted projects under Rule 6(3) of CCR 2004. On a specific query from the Bench, Ld. Representative of the appellant concedes that they have availed CENVAT Credit of input services in the Corporate Office and have not reversed the proportionate amount of credit with respect to the exempted projects. He asserts that as far as other services including the Telephone, FAX, photocopier etc. are concerned, which are used in the project, they have mainta....