TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 72
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were used for rendering taxable service as well as sales activity / trading which is an exempted service. The appellant is therefore required to reverse the credit in terms of Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the credit that has been used for exempted service. The department was of the view that the appellants have not reversed the actual proportionate credit for which Show Cause Notice dated 26.3.2012 was issued for the period October 2010 to September 2011 proposing to demand an amount of Rs. 4,76,362/- being the credit wrongly taken and utilized by them. The Show Cause Notice also proposed to impose penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalty. This order was challenged before Commissioner (Appeals) and vide Order in Appeal No. 170/2016 dated 22.3.2016, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the findings. The said order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was challenged before the Tribunal as Appeal No. ST/41123/2016 and vide Final Order No. 41834/2016 dated 13.10.2016 the matter was remanded by the Tribunal to the adjudicating authority for denovo adjudication. 2. In such denovo adjudication, the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se Notice. As per this, the amount reversed was shown as Rs. 4,12,547/- which has not been considered in the Show Cause Notice. The formula for the reversal has to be as under:- 62283490 𝑥 61644 / 67403891 = Rs. 59,961/- 4. The appellant had submitted before the original authority that the appellant is required to reverse the credit only to the tune of Rs. 59,961/- and that they have reversed much higher amount of Rs. 4,12,547/- than what is actually required to be reversed. 5. The original authority in order dated 14.12.2020 had agreed with the appellant's submission that they are not required to reverse the credit on security services and repair and maintenance services for the period October 2010 to March 2011to the tune of Rs. 46,387/- in para 15.8 of the order. The original authority had also observed in para 16.8 of the order that for the period April 2011 to September 2011, the appellant had reversed a sum of Rs. 4,12,547/- which is higher than that is required under Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However, thereafter, the original authority proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the appellant has not reversed the credit which is contrary to the findin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mar-11 28,88,057.00 10,13,42,746.00 83,269.00 Total 82,25,769.00 70,39,19,824.00 4,23,016.00 Less Rule 6(5) credits of Rs. 46,387 3,76,629.00 The CENVAT Credit (C1) as shown in the SCN includes an amount of Rs. 46,387 relating to credits covered by Rule 6(5) of the CCR, 2004 for which reversal was not required prior to April 2011. Therefore, CENVAT Credit to be taken for calculating reversal for this return should be restricted to Rs. 3,76,629 (which was done as per para 17 of O-in-O page 30) 3. Return Period April 2011 to September 2011 (Reference SCN Annexure I & II page 51 & 52); Assessee's reply page 43 and O-in-O para 16.6 page 30) Month Taxable Value (T2) Exempted value (E2) Actual Cenvat Credit (C2) Reversal under Rule 6(3) (R2) CENVAT Shown as taken in ST3 (NC2) Apr-11 27,799.00 1,39,16,056.00 80,872.00 70,359.00 10,513.00 May-11 7,58,343.00 1,11,12,720.00 79,682.00 69,323.00 10,359.00 Jun-11 8,82,937.00 1,10,10,080.00 80,210.00 69,783.00 10,427.00 Jul-11 10,23,257.00 73,11,576.00 81,328.00 70,755.00 10,573.00 Aug-11 8,08,097.00 97,64,872.00 76,756.00 66,778.00 9,978.00 Sep-11 16,19,968.00 91,31,816.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taken was the figure at C1 (October 2010 to March 2011) and the reversal liability of Rs. 3,70,181 was arrived at. If the CENVAT credit for the entire period (C1 + C2) (3,76,629 + 4,74,191 = 8,50,820) had been taken the total reversal amount would have come to Rs. 8,36,253 as demonstrated in para 3. However, having calculated the liability for the period April 2011 to September 2011 and found that no further payment was due for this period, the proper course should have been to quantify the liability for the period October 2010 to March 2011. The values of taxable and exempted service should then have been restricted to the period October 2010 to March 201I which would have been as follows: E1 x C1 ---------- E1 + T1 70,39,19,824 x 3,76,629 ------------------------------ 70,39,19,824 + 82,25,769 = Rs. 3,72,279 6. Therefore, neither the SCN where the demand was calculated over the entire period of dispute nor the O-in-O where the demand has been calculated over different periods have quantified at the demand correctly. 7. The appellant has not carried forward the CENVAT credit closing balance of Rs. 14,41,435 in the return for the period ending March 2011 to ....