2019 (1) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....interest and equivalent penalty for this amount as per the provisions of Section 15 of CCR read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act; however, he has set aside the demand of Rs. 5,53,204/-. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the assessee was manufacturer of Populated printed circuit boards etc., and they had cleared Solar energy equipment and parts of Wind mill energy equipment which were exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 06/2006 dated 01.03.2006 and 12/2012 dated 17.03.2012. They had opted to avail credit on inputs used in the manufacture of these exempted goods and pay an amount equal to 5%/6% as per Rule 6(3) of CCR. However, it was seen that they were using some of the inputs exclusively for the man....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellants have discharged the obligation under Rule 6(3)(i) any insistence to maintain separate accounts is contrary to the objective under Rule 6(3). He further submitted that the appellants have availed the total credit of Rs. 56,79,065/- and subsequently they have paid the balance amount of Rs. 10,34,237/- to set off the entire amount of CENVAT credit of Rs. 56,79,065/- availed on the inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of exempted final product along with interest at applicable rate. He further submitted that they have not suppressed any facts and therefore, the imposition of penalty is not warranted. He further submitted that if the entire credit taken is reversed, it amounts to not taking credit. In support of his submission,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, he has further reversed Rs. 10,34,237 along with interest; though, he was not required to pay the same. In the present case, the appellant is only challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,34,237/-. Further, I find that in the case of Taher Ali Indus (supra), the Division Bench of this Tribunal has held in Para 6 as under: "We have gone through the records of the case carefully. When a manufacturer uses common inputs in respect of dutiable and exempted products, normally he is expected to maintain separate accounts for receipt, consumption and inventory of the inputs. This is so because he could take credit only on the inputs intended for use in the manufacture of dutiable goods. This is as per Rule 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f pipes, as job work, out of raw material supplied by the Water Supply contractors and clearance of such pipes, without payment of duty, to such contractors. In both the cases, the assessees also manufactured pipes on their own count, out of raw materials procured by them and cleared such pipes to independent buyers on payment of duty. Both the assessees reversed in their Cenvat accounts 8% of the sale price of the exempted goods under Rule 6(3)(b) without maintaining separate accounts. On these facts, it is not difficult to presume that, if Taher Ali Indus. & Projects Pvt. Ltd. were incapable of maintaining separate accounts, so were the present appellants. But this aspect, to our mind, seems to be irrelevant inasmuch as the scheme of Rule....