TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manufacturers of excisable goods falling under Chapter36,38,29 and 27 of the CETA, 1985 and were availing CENVAT credit of duty/Service Tax paid on inputs/input services under CCR, 2004. During the course of audit of the appellant company, it was noticed that the appellant had availed the CENVAT credit of the duty/Service Tax paid in respect of the inputs/input services used in the manufacture of the exempted final product (i.e. peat mixture falling under Chapter 27 of CETA) as well as the other excisable product, during the period from 07/2005 to 03/2010. Further, it was noticed that the appellant had maintained the separate inventory for the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods but not maintained the separate inventory for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of exempted goods. He further submitted that the fact of reversal of proportionate credit is not disputed and the SCN itself appropriates the said sum. Therefore, for the said period, the learned Counsel submitted that the appellant has complied with the provisions of Rule 6(3)(ii) read with Rule 6(3A) of the CCR, 2004 and therefore the demand confirmed in the impugned order under Rule 6(3)(i) is not justified. He further submitted that it is a well settled law that if the assessee has reversed the proportionate credit attributable to input or input services used for exempted goods, then it is as good as not taking of credit at all and hence the question of demand "amount" on the value of exempted goods as per Rule 6(3)(i) does not arise i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ptions given in sub-rule (3) of Rule 6, there is no provisions that if the assessee does not opt any of the option at a particular time, then option of payment of 5% will automatically be applied..........." 4.2. He also submitted that the impugned order is opposed to the decision of the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of Tiara Advertising Vs UOI, 2019 (30) GSTL 474 wherein the Hon'ble High Court interpreted the scope of Rule 6(3). Learned Counsel also submitted that for the period from July 2005 to March 2008, the demand confirmed in the impugned order is barred by limitation for more than one reason. Firstly, the learned Counsel submitted that the entire issue involved bona fide and genuine statutory interpretation of Rule 6 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ber 2008 and audited up to March 2008. Prior to this, the Department had conducted audit of the records on 20.12.2006 and 14.06.2007. Hence, three audit took place prior to the one conducted during February 2010 and the Department never raised any observation on the issue on hand and these facts were within the knowledge of the Department and hence, the question of any wilful suppression of fact is without any merit. For this submission, he relied upon the decision in the case of SDL Auto Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, 2013 (294) ELT 577 (Tri. Del.). 5. On the other hand, learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that in the present case two period....