Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI

COURT No. II

APPEAL No.E/1496/12

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.2/CEX/2012 dated 12/07/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Pune)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :Yes authorities? ========================================

Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd., Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent Pune

Appearance: Shri.Suresh Singh, CA for appellant Shri.VK Agarwal, Addl. Comm. (AR) for respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr.Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing : 11/09/2015 Date of Decision : 11/09/2015

ORDER NO

Per: Raju

1. The appellants are manufacturers of excisable goods and they also manufacture some exempted goods. They were availing credit of duties on inputs as well on input services. They were maintaining separate records of inventory and use of inputs, however, it was alleged that they were not maintaining separate records for use of input services. A notice for demand of duty under rule 6 of CENVAT credit rules was issued to the appellants invoking sub-rule (3) of rule 6. The demand of duty was confirmed by the Commissioner and the appellants are in appeal against the said order of the Commissioner.

2. The appellants pointed out that they has reversed the amount of credit required to be reversed on 29.3.2012 and on 1.9.2012.The reversal of credit, as well as interest, has been examined by the revenue. The Asst Commissioner has observed as follows in his letter F.No.V (Hindustan)/15-07/Adj/IV/2011 dated 13th July 2015 2 It is verified from the records of the assessee by the Superintendent, Range-I of Thergaon Division and reported vide his letter ref.No.R-I/HAL/Adj/SCN/2011 dated 10/07/2015, that the Cenvat Credit taken on inputs and input services for the relevant period and the reversal of the Cenvat Credit of Rs.4,91,587/- on input services on proportionate basis in terms of Rule 6 (3) (ii) of the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004, and the payment of interest of Rs.2,49,784/- for the relevant period is found correct. The work sheet thereon is enclosed for ready reference. However, the same is counter verified by this office and found correct.

3. Further it is submitted that the captioned assessee is not entitled to avail the provisions of sub-rule (3) (ii) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as he has not followed neither the conditions of sub-rule 91) & (2) of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 as he is not maintaining separate books of account for input services used for manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods and providing of dutiable and exempted output services nor the conditions under sub-rule (3) (ii) of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004, to the extent of opting not to maintain separate books of account as explained above in writing to the jurisdictional range superintendent on 1st of April of every financial year.

3. It appears that the only objection is regarding the declaration not being filed. In view of subsequent compliance with the provisions of rule 6 (3) (ii) of CCR, with the payment of credit required to be reversed along with interest, there is substantial compliance of the law. The failure if any is only procedural lapse of not filing the declaration of availing option. In view of above the demand of duty and penalty is set aside. The appeal is allowed.

(Pronounced in Court)

(Anil Choudhary) Member (Judicial) (Raju) Member (Technical)

pj

1 3