Page 125 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

2020 ] COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH-II v. WELSPUN CORPORATION LTD. 459

ment/adjustment of duty under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and also
dutiable goods albeit in small ratio - Finding of Tribunal that dutiable goods
cleared on 5-11-2012 not challenged - No perversity in findings of fact recorded
by Tribunal that it could not be concluded that assessee till 4-11-2012 was in-
dulging only in manufacture of exempted goods - Denial of credit on failure
to maintain separate books of account rightly set aside - Rule 6 of Cenvat Cred-
it Rules, 2004. [paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]
Appeal dismissed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel, for the
Appellant.
Shri Ramnath Prabhu, Advocate, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Avneesh Jhingan, J.]. - By this common order, two appeals
bearing CEA Nos. 18 and 21 of 2018 are being disposed of as the issue involved is
similar.
2. The revenue has filed the appeals under Section 35G of the Central
Excise Act, 1944 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the order dated 10-8-2016 passed by
the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short,
‘the Tribunal’) claiming following substantial questions of law :
“(A) Whether the impugned order dated 10-8-2016, Annexure A-3 is
based on surmises and conjectures and is therefore perverse and un-
tenable in the eyes of law?
(B) Whether the Ld. Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on rec-
ord to presume that the inputs at the start of manufacture are avail-
able for credit and therefore irrespective of the fact that the goods
which were finally cleared were exempted, the assessee would be
entitled to benefit of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules?
(C) Whether the respondent who at the time of manufacturing and
claiming Cenvat credit was well aware that the goods were exempt-
ed is entitled to the benefit of Cenvat Credit only because he has
paid 6% of the duty in terms of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules,
2004?
(D) Whether the benefit of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules is avail-
able to the assessee, irrespective of his conduct and mala fide inten-
tion to avail Cenvat credit on the inputs used in manufacturing of
exempted goods?
(E) Whether the Ld. Tribunal failed to appreciate that the adjudicating
authority had relied upon ER-1 return filed by the respondent itself
to come to a conclusion that goods cleared from 9-2012 to 4-11-2012
were exempted goods and therefore the respondent at the time of
purchase of inputs as well as manufacturing of final goods was
aware of the exemption certificate in favour of the GMADA?
(F) Whether the respondent who had manipulated a purchase order
dated 5-11-2012 only in order to bring otherwise exempt goods in a
mixed bag an then to claim Cenvat credit by paying 06% duty in
terms of Rule 6(3) of the CCR, 2004 is entitled to the benefit of Rule
6(3) to avail Cenvat credit on inputs used in manufacturing of ex-
empt goods?”

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  125