TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 389
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rising out of common impugned order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s. BDH Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "appellant") was engaged in manufacture of medicaments falling under Chapter 30 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Out of the numerous medicaments manufactured by the appellant, some were chargeable to normal duty of central excise whereas others were fully exempted vide Notification No. 04/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. Appellant maintained separate records in respect of inputs going into the manufacture of dutiable medicaments and exempted medicaments. Appellant availed cenvat credit of central excise duty on inputs going into the manufacture of medicaments which were chargeable to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and calculated the amount to be paid by the appellant under the provisions of Rule 6(3)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules and arrived at the figure of around Rs.3.08 crores being the amount liable to be demanded from the appellant on the basis of 10% or 5% of the value of exempted final products cleared by the appellant. Appellant was issued with a show cause notice dated 29.04.2013 calling upon the appellant as to why an amount of Rs.3,08,35,395/- should not be recovered from the appellant under the provisions of Rule 6(3)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. There was also a proposal to impose penalty on the other appellant. Appellant submitted their reply to the show cause notice and also submitted written submissions during the course of hearing. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... credit availed on service tax paid on services utilized both for exempted and dutiable final products was debited and, therefore, as held by various precedent judicial rulings, the amount at the rate of 5% or 10% was not payable by the appellant. He has relied on ruling by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Nagpur reported at 1996 (81) ELT 3 (SC) and further submitted that on the basis of ruling by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above stated case, this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Udaipur vs. Secure Meters Ltd. reported at 2017 (354) ELT 146 (Tri.-Del.)has held that it is immaterial as to whether the reversal of availed cenvat credit is before clearance or after clearance of the goods and once the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were going into the manufacture of exempted final products was not availed by the appellant. We also note that this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Udaipur vs. Secure Meters Ltd. (supra) has held that even if subsequent to clearance, the availed cenvat credit is debited, then it is as if the cenvat credit was never availed. The said view of this Tribunal was affirmed by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. For the sake of ready reference, we reproduce para 7 of the final order of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Udaipur vs. Secure Meters Ltd. followed by the order passed by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court dismissing the appeal filed by Revenue against the said final order. "7. We find that the issue is no more res integra. Commissioner (Appeals) has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stant appeal are that the respondent assessee is engaged in manufacture of exempted as well as dutiable final product. The assessee availed Cenvat credit on duty paid on inputs being used on both types of products. A notice to show cause was issued and immediately thereafter the assessee reversed the Cenvat credit attributable to inputs and input service used in the manufacture of exempted final product. The assessing officer imposed a penalty on the count that Cenvat credit was availed even on exempted final product and reversal was made only after issuance of notice to show cause. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the appeal preferred by the assessee by arriving at the conclusion that once reversal has already been made, no penalty coul....