TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (9) TMI 240
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 30-9-2005, PIHPL had cleared both categories of final products packed in plastic crates. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry had demanded an amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- being 8% of the sale price of Slice cleared during the period 1-10-2003 to 30-9-2004 vide his Order in Original No. 14/2005 dated 18-10-2005 in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) and Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, (CCR) 2002. Penalty of Rs. 12 lakhs also was imposed in the said order. On the same grounds vide his Order in Original No. 6/2006 dated 2-6-2006, he demanded an amount of Rs. 2,00,68,669/- being 10% of the sale price of Slice cleared during 1-10-2004 to 30-9-2005. Penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs was also imposed on PIHPL in the said order. Pepsi had failed to maintain separa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2007 dated 30-4-07. We found that the duty demand upheld had been erroneously computed in the order. We had not restricted the demand for the period from 16-5-05 (when the Rule 6 of CCR was amended including fuel as an input requiring maintenance of separate accounts when it is a common input) to 31-8-05 (when Pepsi ceased availing credit on FO). The other error claimed to have been committed by the Bench was that we had considered Board's Circular No. 645/45/2002-CX dated 19-8-02 whereas the Counsel had cited the Board's Circular No. 591/28/2001-CX, dated 16-10-2001. Operation of the former Circular alone had been suspended by Board's Circular No. 739/55/2003-CX, dated 28-8-03. We find that both the Circulars dated 16-10-01 and 28-8-03 ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ining the objection would have amounted to reviewing our Misc. Order which was not permissible as argued by the JCDR himself. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that at the initial hearing he had argued that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Chandrapur Magnets case and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Hello Minerals [2004 (174) E.L.T. 422] case an assessee could avail of a benefit conditional on not availing the modvat/cenvat benefit, after reversing the credit taken. Citing case law it had been argued that timing of reversal was immaterial. In the Final Order, the said plea was rejected on the basis that the cited judicial authorities had dealt with eligibility to exemption notifications subject to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the requirement to pay 8%/10% of the sale price of exempted final products as mandated by Rule 6(3) (b) of CCR. 6. We have carefully considered the case records and the rival submissions. In the instant case, the demand had been made for the reason that Pepsi had availed & credit of duty paid on FO used in dutiable and exempted final products. We have found that the other input, new plastic crates had not been used in packing exempted Slice bottles and Rule 6(3)(b) of CCR was attracted to the impugned clearances of exempted final products only on account of use of FO in the production of both dutiable and exempted final products. As regards FO, the Counsel's submission that the appellant had reversed the entire credit taken on &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... final products, reversal of ascertained credit on inputs used in exempted products before their clearance amounted to non-availment of credit. In Ballarpur Industries Ltd v. CCE [2006 (201) E.L.T. 146 (Tri.-Mumbai)} facts were that assessee did not maintain separate accounts in respect of one of the several common inputs and reversed proportionate credit relatable to exempted goods. The Tribunal held that it was not necessary to pay 8% as per Rule 6(2) of CCR 2001. It was also held that if keeping separate inventory was not technically feasible reversal of 8% was not called for. Tribunal had relied on apex Court's judgment in Chandrapur Magnets Wires (P) Ltd. case. Credit was reversed subsequent to clearance of the exempted goods. In Manga....