2020 (9) TMI 503

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6th August 2013 for the period from 1st July 2008 to 30th September 2012 and from 1st November 2013 for the remaining part of the year 2012-13 for having discharged liability under rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by resort to both options simultaneously on clearances from the several plants of the appellant located within the same registered factory. Another appeal relates to demand of Rs. 1,56,19,370 on account of additional liability arising from non-inclusion of the value of inputs supplied free of cost by the customer for the period from 2009-10 to 2012-13. 2. Explaining the reasons for the dichotomous neutralization of CENVAT credit availed on 'inputs' and 'inputs services', procured in common for both dutiable and exempted goo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ides making submissions on the bar of limitation, argued that the subsequent amendment in rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, being a substitution of provisions, should, in accordance with settled law on the issue subject, be retrospectively available and that the failure on the part of the adjudicating authority to extend that benefit rendered the impugned order to be untenable. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zile Singh v. State of Haryana [(2004) 8 SCC 1] which was applied by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Fosroc Chemicals (India) Ltd (2015 (318) ELT 240 (Kar)] taking note of decision of the Tribunal having placed reliance upon Sujana Metal Products Ltd v. Comm....