2008 (8) TMI 174

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rules, 2004, being 10% of the total price (excluding taxes) of the exempted final products cleared from their factory during the period 16-5-2005 to 31-3- 2006. During the said period, they had also cleared other products on payment of duty. However, separate accounts were not maintained in respect of Furnace Oil (fuel), a common input used in the manufacture of the dutiable and exempted final products. Hence the above demand under Rule 6(3)(b). After hearing both sides, we find that it is not in dispute that the entire credit taken on the fuel was reversed by the party after issuance of the show-cause notice. 2. Appeal No. E/292/2007 filed by M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. (RSIL, for short) is against a similar demand of Rs. 23,23,45,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....008 (230) E.L.T. 126 (Tribunal) = 2008-TIOL-59-CESTAT-MAD] as also on the following decisions of co-ordinate Benches :- (i) Final Order No. A/2211/WZB/AHD/2007 dated 29-8-2007 in Appeal No. E/2982/2003 [Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I v. Gujarat Guardian Ltd. - 2007 (220) E.L.T. 270 (Tribunal)] (ii) Final Order No. 588/2007 dated 14-5-2007 in Appeal No. E/1109/2006 [Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore] (iii) Final Order No. 1181/2007 dated 17-10-2007 in Appeal No. C/178/2007 (Ruchi Infrastructure Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam] - 2008 (224) E.L.T. 123 (Tribunal)] We have heard the learned SDR also, who has reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner. 4....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....RSIL, we find that input service tax credit of Rs. 3.91 lakhs had been taken by them on services received prior to 1-3-2005, during which period their entire production was cleared on payment of duty only. Prima facie, this credit was admissible to them. Credit of Rs. 3.62 lakhs had been taken on a variety of input services which are claimed to be services specified under sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, in respect of which there was no bar on availment of credit on the ground of exempted final products having been cleared along with dutiable final products. We find that the claim of the assessee for the benefit was not considered by the Commissioner. Therefore the question whether the input service tax credit of Rs.....