2022 (12) TMI 348

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e order of Additional Commissioner dated 23.04.2010 and rejected the appellant's appeal. Hence this appeal. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of various pharmaceuticals some of which such as, Hydrocortisone, Pencillin, Tetracyline, Corticosteriod and Chloroquine are exempted from duty. During audit by the Revenue, it was discovered that the appellant had availed the CENVAT credit on common inputs and common input services which were used in the manufacture of the dutiable and exempted products to the extent to Rs. 2,80,049/- but it had not maintained separate accounts as required under rule 6(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 [CCR]. Therefore, according to Revenue the appellant is required to p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned order on the ground of limitation as the period involved is 1.04.2007 to 31.11.2008 and the show cause notice was issued on 23.04.2012 beyond the normal period of limitation. The appellant had been regularly filing its returns and, therefore, according to the learned counsel, it cannot be alleged to have suppressed any facts or committed any fraud or wilfully represented. 6. Learned authorised representative for the Revenue confirms that the appellant had reversed the entire amount of disputed CENVAT credit on common inputs and input services. However, he supports the impugned order. He submits that the case of Chandrapur Magnet is different inasmuch as in that case the appellant had reversed the MODVAT credit taken on the inputs befor....