2020 (6) TMI 222

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aged in manufacture of safety shoes and hand gloves and work wears. They are also engaged in clearing the safety shoes on payment of duty and clearing hand gloves and work wear without payment of duty. The appellant has also availed the cenvat credit of duty paid on input and input services. Department observed that the appellant has availed and utilised cenvat credit of service tax paid on certain input services both in dutiable and exempted goods which amounts to contravention of provisions of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly vide Show Cause Notice No. 4031 dated 14.03.2012 an amount of Rs. 1,96,31,255/- on the value of exempted goods was proposed to be recovered from the appellant in terms of Rule 6 (3) of Cenvat Credit R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the order under challenge is brought to our notice wherein it has been noted that: "In fact, assessee has misstated fact before Hon'ble Tribunal that they had reversed entire credit and based on their version case was remanded for denovo adjudication." 5. It has been specifically held in the order that there was no separate account ever provided by the appellant during the period of the impugned Show Cause Notice. Nothing contrary to this opinion has been brought on record by the appellant. Thus there seems no infirmity in the order under challenge. Otherwise also the appellant themselves being reversed the credit of Rs. 80006/- the appeal is accordingly prayed to be dismissed. 6. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d period. Hence, said verification report could be the basis for dropping the Show Cause Notice/adjudication for the subsequent period but the demand for the period of impugned Show Cause Notice cannot be dropping based on said verification report. 6.2 From the order under challenge where the submissions have been recorded by the adjudicating authority, it is apparent rather as an admission that the appellant were not maintaining the separate account as is required under Rule 6(2) of CCR, 2004. The appellant rather voluntarily reversed the credit of Rs. 80006/- in respect of duty paid on input/input services used in manufacture of non dutiable goods. 6.3 Further, it is observed that the impugned order under challenge is order passed in ....