TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 818
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... confirmed demand of an amount of Rs. 1,21,20,085/- from the appellant under rule 6 (3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2004 [CCR] covering the period from April 2007 to March, 2009. 2. We have heard Shri Jatin Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rakesh Agarwal, learned authorized representative appearing for the Revenue and perused the records. 3. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of PVC pipes, HDPE Coil and sprinkling systems. During audit, it was noticed that the appellant was manufacturing both dutiable and exempted goods but were not maintaining separate accounts for the inputs/ input services so used in the final products. The total amount of CENVAT credit used on the common inputs/ input services was Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nputs used in the manufacture of exempted and dutiable goods. 6. Even otherwise, the appellant has reversed the credit of service tax on the input service viz, insurance and has not availed any credit with respect to other services. 7. In view of the above, the demand cannot sustained either on merits or on limitation. Submissions of Revenue 8. Learned authorized representative appearing for the Revenue vehemently supported the impugned order and asserted that the scope of the appeal must be limited to the extent of remand order passed by the Tribunal on the first round. In the first round, the Tribunal had directed the Commissioner to provide the report of the Assistant Commissioner and since it has been provided, the impugned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s issued invoking extended period of limitation on 30.04.2012. The demand invoking the extended period of limitation cannot sustained on the ground of limitation itself being barred by time itself. 13. Even on merits, it is not disputed that the appellant had maintained separate records for inputs used for manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods. The only common input service which was used was the service tax paid on the insurance services. Needless to say such a service cannot be vivisected into insurance towards the exempted goods and insurance towards the dutiable goods. The total CENVAT credit on this common input service so availed was only Rs. 1,74,190/-. A demand of Rs. 1,21,20,085/- was under rule 6(3) of CCR is made in the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nable, if not absurd, result. That apart, the second respondent did not even choose to deal with the binding case law cited before him while dealing with the issues arising for consideration. This arrogant and arbitrary approach adopted by the second respondent cannot be countenanced. It would therefore not be necessary for the petitioner to go through the motions of a statutory appeal to challenge the same. The contention of the respondents as to the maintainability of the writ petition is therefore rejected. 14. Further, we may reiterate that Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, merely offers options to an output service provider who does not maintain separate accounts in relation to receipt, consumption and inventory of i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 16-5-2016. It is not his case that any of these decisions was overturned or that there is a binding decision of a higher judicial authority to the contrary. He also has no explanation to offer as to why the second respondent did not even deal with the case law cited before him. We therefore hold that disallowance of Cenvat Credit on the ground that the petitioner had availed the same by producing debit notes instead of invoices cannot be accepted. 17. In effect, the Order-in-Original does not withstand judicial scrutiny on both issues and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs." 15. We do not find any....