Page 194 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

528 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

service which are chargeable to duty or tax as well as exempted goods or
services, then, the manufacturer or provider of output service shall main-
tain separate accounts for receipt, consumption and inventory of input and
input service meant for use in the manufacture of dutiable final products or
in providing output service and the quantity of input meant for use in the
manufacture of exempted goods or services and take CENVAT credit only
on that quantity of input or input service which is intended for use in the
manufacture of dutiable goods.
Rule 6(3)(i) ibid further provides that the manufacturer opting not to main-
tain separate accounts, shall pay an amount equal to ten per cent of value of
the exempted goods.”
10. The adjudicating authority and the Tribunal erred in not appreciat-
ing the significant change brought in Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004,
w.e.f. 1-3-2008 vide Notification No. 10/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2008 which as
noticed in the OIO with reference to sale of goods, was deleted and in its place
the emphasis was shifted to the payment of an amount equal to 10% of the ‘val-
ue’ of exempted goods.
11. Further, the Tribunal has also not examined the provisions as stipu-
lated in Rule 6 of the Rules of 2004 for availing Cenvat Credit on such quantity of
input which were used in the exempted goods during the period from March
2008 onwards which are applicable in the present case. In the absence of any
findings to this effect that the provisions prescribed in the relevant Rule with
reference to changes brought in Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 w.e.f.
1-3-2008 have been complied with or not, the dropping of the demand is against
the spirit of law.
12. Accordingly, dropping of the demand is correct only upto Febru-
ary, 2008 in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) and demand raised for period March, 2008 on-
ward is required to be examined in terms of changes brought in Rule 6(3)(b) of
Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 w.e.f. 1-3-2008 vide Notification No. 10/2008-C.E.
(N.T.), dated 1-3-2008 as discussed above. The significant amendment is that the
issue of the ‘sale’ vehementally put up by the assessee is no longer available to
them in view of the changes brought in Rule supra as after the amendment it is
‘removal’ and not ‘sale’.
13. The aforesaid legal position is not disputed by the Learned Senior
Counsel for the respondent.
14. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the mat-
ter requires to be remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the matter. Ac-
cordingly, all these appeals are allowed and disposed of by remitting the matter
back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision by taking into consideration the signifi-
cant changes made in Rule 6(3)(i) vide Notification No. 10/2008, dated 1-3-2008
in accordance with law.
15. All the appeals stands allowed and disposed of in the manner indicat-
ed hereinabove.
_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  194