TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 829
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roportionate CENVAT Credit along with interest @ 24%, no demand of 10% of the value of the exempted goods can be made. He placed reliance on the following judgments: - 1) CESTAT, Ahmedabad Final Order No.A/12475 /2021 dated 29.10.2021 in Appeal No.10506/2013 of M/s. Sanstar Bio Polymers Ltd. 2) Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. -2017 (352) ELT 86 (Tri-Del.) - maintained by the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court {2017 (356) ELT A48} and Hon'ble Supreme Court [ 2018 (360) ELT A121(SC)]; 3) CCE Vs. Goyal Proteins Ltd. - 2017 (355) ELT 72 (Raj.) maintained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [2017 (355) ELT A27 (SC); 4) CCE, Chennai-II vs. Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. -2017 (356) ELT 184 (Mad.). 3. Shri Sanjay Hasija, learned Supdt. (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that as per retrospective amendment of Rule 6 in terms of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010, it is mandatory that the appellant should have paid proportionate CENVAT Credit along with 24% interest within a period of six months from the enactment of the said amendment. In the present case, the appellant had paid remaining 11% interes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... exempted goods. 5. On perusal of the entire records, we find that it is not disputed that as to during the relevant period in this case, the appellant had availed the Cenvat credit on the common inputs which are used for dutiable as well as exempted goods. It is also seen from the records that there is no dispute as to the facts that the appellant herein reversed the proportionate cenvat attributable to the inputs which are used in the manufacturing of the exempted goods in the factory premises. 6. If the fact of reversal of Cenvat credit attributable to the inputs which are used in the manufacturing of exempted goods is undisputed, we find that the issue is now squarely covered by the retrospective amendment of the Cenvat Credit Rules by the Finance Act, 2010 which contemplates for reversal of Cenvat credit attributable to the inputs which are used in the manufacturing of exempted goods. 7. In our considered opinion, the appellant was following the procedure even before the retrospective amendment came into picture. 8. In light of the foregoing, we find that the impugned order confirming the demands of an amount equivalent to 8%/10% of the valu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of demanding 8% or 10% on the price of excise salt does not arise. Further, they have also reversed the credit of duty paid on the inputs that went into the manufacture of soda ash used in the manufacture of brine used for exempted product. The Commissioner has discussed the issue of limitation in his order and observed that the appellants had never brought it to the notice of the Department that a portion of soda ash has been used in the exempted product. We find force in the argument of the Department that while it can be said that use of electricity in the excise product as well as dutiable product was known to the Department, the same thing cannot be said about soda ash. It is quite possible that appellants may be accounting the soda ash separately and using the same for exempted products. Only on verification, it has been found that the soda ash used for manufacture of brine, which was in turn used for exempted product was not duty paid. Therefore, we feel that extended period has been rightly invoked. Further the fact that appellants on their own paid the duty on soda ash used for producing exempted goods on 5-9-2006 voluntarily also supports view. They have also claimed that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra) wherein the manufacturer was availing credit in respect of duty paid on inputs and clearing the goods on payment of duty and, thereafter, suo moto reversed the credit and filed refund claim in respect of duty paid on the ground that the goods are exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 6/2006. In such a situation Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the condition of notification was that exemption is available only in case when credit has not been taken in respect of duty paid on inputs the benefit of notification is not available. In the present case facts are different. In the present case the appellants submitted that they want to reverse whole of the credit availed on common inputs used in the manufacture of excisable as well as exempted goods. This situation is covered by the Tribunal judgment in the case of Maize Products (supra). The Tribunal after considering the earlier decision of the Tribunal has held as under :- "We have carefully considered the submissions. We are convinced that the demand is highly dis-apportionate to the credit availed on the common inputs which could be attributed to goods which have been cleared without payment of duty. We....