M/S. Unimed Technologies Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...

Appeal No. : E/627/2005 [Application No. E/Extn/15303/2014]

(Arising out of OIO-53/VDR-II/DEMAND/2014 dated 11.01.2005, Passed by Commissioner Central Excise & Service Tax, Surat)

M/s. Unimed Technologies Limited : Appellant (s)

VERSUS

Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Surat : Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Assessee : Ms. Vijaya Bilmore, Advocate For Revenue : Shri G.P. Thomas, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. R.K. Singh, Hon'ble Member (Technical)

1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Yes

CORAM :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. R.K. Singh, Hon'ble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 15.01.2015

ORDER No. A/10065 / 2015 Dated 15.01.2015

Per : Mr. P.K. Das;

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of P&P Medicines. The appellant used the common inputs in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted products. By the impugned order, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of 8% of the sale value of the exempted goods as the appellant had not followed the procedure as prescribed under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.

2. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that they have reversed the proportionate credit of Rs. 4,41,671/-, used in the manufacture of exempted products. She further submits that the period of dispute is November 2003 to April 2004. We find that in Finance Act, 2010, there is an amendment of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules,2002 with retrospective effect, as under:-

In the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, in Rule 6, after sub-rule (5), the following sub-rule shall be inserted, namely:-

(6) Where a dispute relating to adjustment of credit on inputs used in or in relation to exempted final products relating to the period beginning on the 1st day of March, 2002 and ending with the 9th day of September, 2004 (both days inclusive) is pending on the date on which the Finance Bill, 2010 receives the assent of the President, then, notwithstanding anything contained in su-rules (1), (2) and (3), a manufacturer availing CENVAT credit in respect of any inputs, except inputs intended to be used as fuel, and manufacturing final products which are chargeable to duty and also other final products which are exempted goods, may pay an amount equivalent to CENVAT credit attributable to the inputs used in, or in relation to the manufacture of, exempted goods before or after the clearance of such goods:

Provided that the manufacturer shall pay interest at the rate of twenty-four per cent. per annum from the due date till the date of payment of the said amount.

Explanation.  For the purpose of this sub-rule, due date means the 5th day of the month following the month in which goods have been cleared from the factory.

3. We find that the issue involved is covered by the amendment by Finance Act, 2010. In view of that, we set-aside the impugned order and appeal is allowed with consequential relief. Application for extension of period of stay order is also disposed of.

(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)

(R.K. Singh) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) ..KL

3