ICPA HEALTH PRODUCTS LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONERS OF CENTRAL EXCISE
LAWS(CE)-2015-7-22
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on July 30,2015

Icpa Health Products Limited Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioners Of Central Excise Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

CCE V. ETA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

H.K.THAKUR - (1.)THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No BC/18/SURAT -II/2011 Dated 15.03.2011 under which OIO No. 05/JC/NKS/DEM/2010 Dated 04.09.2015 passed by Adjudicating Authority has been upheld.
(2.)Sh. Jigar Shah (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that appellant was issued a show cause notice for paying 10% amount on the value of exempted goods under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. That they reversed the entire CENVAT credit taken on the common inputs used for the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods. However it was his case that as per Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010 a procedure facility was provided to the assessee to pay the credit proportionate to the CENVAT credit involved in exempted goods. That as per Subsection 3 & 4 of Section 73 to the Finance Act, 2010 the intimation of such payment was given to the Commissioner within 6 months and Commissioner was to accept the same within 2 months. That if the amount paid by the appellant was not acceptable that Commissioner could only ask the appellant to pay any additional amount. That appellant vide Letter Dated 28.10.10 filed such intimation under Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 as introduced w.e.f. 08.05.2010 alongwith a Chartered Accountant's Certificate. That as per this intimation and CA's certificate only an amount of Rs. 7,51,124/ - was required to be reversed as credit pertaining to common inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final product. Learned Advocate also relied upon the following case laws in support of his arguments that only proportionate credit is required to be reversed: -
(i) Global Pharmatech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [ : 2011 (274) E.L.T. 413 (Tri. -Chennai)]

(ii) Swiss Parenterals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad [ : 2014 (308) E.L.T. 81 (Tri. -Ahmd.)]

(3.)SH . Govind Jha, (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue defended the orders passed by the lower authorities. It was his case that the fact of appellant having filed application dated 28.10.2010, alongwith CA's Certificate before Commissioner, was not taken up before the lower authorities. That the fact of having paid the amounts as per amended provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 effective from 08.05.2010 has to be verified. It was his argument that if on merit the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed this payments made by the appellant needs verification.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.