2026 (2) TMI 178

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....are engaged in the manufacture of Rechargeable Lanterns, Speakers, Digital Satellite Receivers, Solar Lanterns falling under Chapter 85 and 94 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant avail cenvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of their final products. On the basis of audit of their records for the period August 2009 to March 2011, it was alleged that they had availed cenvat credit of duty paid on various input services viz. security services, management or business consultant services, repair & management services, tours and travels, courier, import freight, custom house agent services, manpower recruiting services etc. amounting to Rs.27,37,138/- which were used in relation to manufacture of both dutiable and exempted g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ut services aggregating to Rs.15,48,545/- and on common inputs used in the manufacture of both excisable and exempted goods aggregating to Rs.49,61,267/- prior to issuance of Audit Note No.160/2011 dated 27.11.2011. The appellant had availed cenvat credit of duty paid on common inputs and input services only after the audit note was issued. She has categorically submitted that the appellant had availed credit of service tax paid on input services and duty paid inputs in or in relation to manufacture of both dutiable and exempted final products only after 06.02.2012 pursuant to audit note dated 27.11.2011. Therefore, the appellant had not availed service tax paid on common input services during the period in dispute i.e. August 2009 to March....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mitation and no penalty is imposable. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue has reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The short question involved in the present appeal is whether the appellant had reversed the amount of Rs.55,70,416/- being the 5% value of the exempted goods in terms of Rule 6(3) of the CCR, 2004. 7. We find that as per Para 9 of the Audit Note dated 27.11.2011, show-cause notice was issued to them wherein it was alleged that the appellant had availed cenvat credit on input services other than those listed under Rule 6(5) of the CCR, 2004 during the relevant period August 2009 to March 2011 and consequently, it was pointed out that an amount of Rs.55,70,146/....