TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (9) TMI 174
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: Ganesh Haavanur, SDR Order 1. This is an appeal against OIO No. 12/2004, dated 26-8-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad-III Commissionerate. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The appellants are the manufacturers of MS Pipes (Steel Pipes), an excisable commodity. They availed the input credit on the materials used in the manufacture of the MS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....goods but the Revenue proceeded against the appellants on the ground that the appellants maintained separate accounts of inputs used in the manufacture of exempted and dutiable goods and, therefore, they were not entitled for the Cenvat Credit in respect of the inputs used in the exempted goods. Consequently, the Adjudicating Authority denied Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 6,67,68,489/-. Interest ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is also seen from records that the said input was being used at the same time for both dutiable and exempted goods intermittently." From the above, the Adjudicating Authority has categorically admitted that all the inputs listed above are common inputs and hence, the impugned OIO has to be set aside. (ii) The appellants, in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, opted not to m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... records in terms of Rule 6(2). There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the figures arrived in the computer print out as per Annexure IV to the Show Cause Notice is based on the seized records. (iv) In view of the above submissions, he requested to set aside the OIO. 5. The learned SDR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner in OIO. 6. We have gone through the records of the case ....