TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the case are that the Respondent is engaged, inter alia, in manufacture of both dutiable goods namely Peppermint Oil, Menthone Oil, Terpene etc., and exempted goods such as Menthol Crystal and Menthol Flake (exempted vide Notification No.4/2008-CT dated 1.3.2008) falling under Chapter sub-heading 2906 11 00, 3003 90 21 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Range Superintendent vide letter dated 2.2.2009 requested the party to maintain separate records of inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods and informed that in absence of maintenance of such separate accounts, they would be either required to pay an amount equal to 10% /5% of the value of exempted goods or an amount equivalent to the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt. It was the department's view that the party was required to maintain two separate accounts for raw material used in excisable goods and ones used in exempted goods. Further, the statement of Shri Arvind Kumar Arora, Proprietor was also recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A Show Cause Notice dated 26.3.2013 was issued to the Respondent proposing to demand Excise duty amounting to Rs.6,17,16,393 invoking extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest and penalty alleging that the Respondent did not maintain separate accounts for inputs used in manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods in contravention of the provisions of Rule 6(3), Rule ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufacture of dutiable and exempted goods, thus, no reversal to be made under Rule 6(3) of Credit Rules; Being aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned Order, the Appellant-Department has filed the present appeal. 4. Learned Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue has reiterated the grounds of Appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the Respondent has maintained separate records of the utilisation of inputs on which credit was taken in the manufacture of dutiable goods only. Thus, separate records were maintained for duty paid inputs and duty-free inputs utilised in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods in accordance with Rule 6 of the Credit Rules. In this regard, de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liable to be dismissed. Reliance is placed on the following judgements : • Indian Potash Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad, 2012 (281) ELT 622 (Tri.-Del.); • Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Lucknow, 2012 (293) ELT 232 (Tri.-Del.) 7. Learned counsel further submits that the present demand has been raised for the period from March 2008 to February 2010 and the SCN was issued on 26.3.2013 based on the statement recorded and record resumed on 17.12.2009, therefore the entire period is beyond the time limit of one year and is barred by limitation. The Respondent was under the bona fide belief that they had correctly availed the Cenvat Credit on only those inputs which are use....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....show cause notice against the respondent for taking credit on any input which is solely used in exempted goods or used as common input. 10. We find that the notice alleged that though the party maintains separate records but not as required under Rule 6 (2) of the CCR, 2004. We find that this view is not supported by any evidence and there is no prescribed manner in Rule 6 (2) for maintaining separate records. We also find that the only requirement is that the credit should not be taken on inputs used in exempted goods. If the inventory of exempted goods are separately maintained and no credit is availed on the inputs used therein, this will serve the purpose. The demand of 10% amount under sub-rule 3 of Rule 6 of the CCR, 2004 on the ex....