TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 807
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... common substantial question of law, they are being decided by the common order. 2. The present appeals are filed under Sub Section (1) of Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against the final order passed in the appeal by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. 3. These appeals were admitted to determination of the following substantial question of law :- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in ignoring the significant changes made in Rule 6(3)(i) vide notification no.10/2008 dated 1.3.2008?" 4. The facts are noted from C.E.A. No.76/2018. It is stated that the respondent Company is having registration for Central Excise and is engaged in the manufacture of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee failed to pay the said amount which appeared to be recoverable under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 6. Show cause notices were issued to the assessee under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The show cause notices were adjudicated by the Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Jabalpur, vide order dated 21.12.2016 wherein the Commissioner dropped the demands. The order of the Commissioner was reviewed by the Committee of Chief Commissioners relating to the demand for the period from 1.3.2008 onwards. Accordingly, the department had filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... take CENVAT credit only on that quantity of input or input service which is intended for use in the manufacture of dutiable goods. Rule 6(3)(i) ibid further provides that the manufacturer opting not to maintain separate accounts, shall pay an amount equal to ten per cent of value of the exempted goods." 10. The adjudicating authority and the Tribunal erred in not appreciating the significant change brought in Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, w.e.f. 1.3.2008 vide Notification No.10/2008 C.E.(N.T.) dated 1.3.2008 which as noticed in the OIO with reference to sale of goods, was deleted and in its place the emphasis was shifted to the payment of an amount equal to 10% of the 'value' of exempted goods. 11. Further, the Tribun....