Murli Industries Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur

Murli Industries Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 23, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/944187

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/944187
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: The Honourable Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President &Amp; the Honourable Mr. S.K. Gaule, Member (Technical)
Decided On: Sep 23, 2010
Case Number: APPEAL No.E/1147/08 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.14/2008/C dated 21/08/2008 passed by
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Murli Industries Ltd.

Advocate Shri.V.Sridharan, Advocate for the Appellants. Shri.A.K. Prasad, JCDR for the Respondents.

Respondent

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur

Excerpt

per: mr. s.s. kang, vice president 1. heard both sides. 2. the appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the demand is confirmed in view of the provisions of rule 6 (3) (b) of the cenvat credit rules, 2004. the appellants are availing credit in respect of the common inputs used in the manufacture of goods cleared on payment of duty as well as exempted goods. the appellants are reversing the credit on pro-rata basis or in some cases have not availed the credit. 3. the case of the revenue is that as the appellants are not maintaining separate accounts in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods, therefore, as per the provisions of rule 6 (3) of the cenvat credit rules, the appellants are liable to pay 10% of the price of the exempted goods. 4. we find that now the rule 6 of the cenvat credit rules has been amended retrospectively by the finance act 2010. amendment is to the effect the manufacturer can opt for reversal of credit in respect of the inputs used in or in relation to the exempted goods 5. in view of the retrospective amendment of the rules, we find that the matter is required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order in view of the retrospective amendment after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent.

Full Judgment

Per: Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President

1. Heard both sides.

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the demand is confirmed in view of the provisions of Rule 6 (3) (b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellants are availing credit in respect of the common inputs used in the manufacture of goods cleared on payment of duty as well as exempted goods. The appellants are reversing the credit on pro-rata basis or in some cases have not availed the credit.

3. The case of the Revenue is that as the appellants are not maintaining separate accounts in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods, therefore, as per the provisions of Rule 6 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the appellants are liable to pay 10% of the price of the exempted goods.

4. We find that now the Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules has been amended

retrospectively by the Finance Act 2010. Amendment is to the effect the manufacturer can opt for reversal of credit in respect of the inputs used in or in relation to the exempted goods

5. In view of the retrospective amendment of the rules, we find that the matter is required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order in view of the retrospective amendment after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Murli Industries Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Central Excise, ... Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge The Honourable Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President &Amp; the Honour...