By the Court.—Heard Sri Ashok Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-assessee.

2. This central excise appeal has been filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as ‘’the Act’) praying to set aside the final Order No. A/50281/2015-EX(DB) dated 9.2.2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and raising the following questions of law:

(i) Whether the benefit of Rule 6(3)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 can be extended for the period beyond 1.4.2008 under Notification No. 10/2008-CE(NT) dated 1.3.2008 under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(ii) Whether the benefit of Rule 6(3)(ii) & (iii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 be extended to the party when option to avail a particular provision as required under Rule 6(3)(A)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has not been exercised by the party.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has grossly erred in allowing the benefit of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to the respondent and also in imposing costs of Rs. 10,000/- on the adjudicating authority.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. He also refers to the earlier order passed by the Tribunal and the directions contained therein.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that a show-cause notice dated 19th March, 2010 was issued by the appellant to the respondent-assessee demanding Central Excise Duty of Rs. 2,08,96,245/- on the ground that the assessee had not maintained separate inventory/accounts of raw material and input services used in the manufacture of dutiable/exempted glass and glassware and thus, contravened the provisions of Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘’the Rules’) and failed to pay 10% (5% w.e.f. 7.7.2009) of the total price of the exempted glass and glassware charged from the buyers during the Financial Years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and for the period from 1.4.2009 to 6.7.2009 and from 7.7.2009 to 30.9.2009. Another show-cause notice dated 29.10.2010 was issued on similar grounds for the period from 1.10.2009 to 31.3.2010 for breach of Rule 6(3) of the Rules demanding Central Excise Duty of Rs. 15,92,240/-.

7. The aforesaid two show-cause notices were adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur and an order in Original No. 09, dated 27.5.2011 was passed confirming a demand of duty of Rs. 95,51,744/- for the period from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2010 and allowed application of the assessee under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010 extending the benefit of Rs. 1,29,36,741/- for the period from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2008. While passing the Order in Original, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur recorded a finding that the assessee had filed the application under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010 for the entire period of show-cause notice alongwith a certificate of Chartered Accountant in terms of Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 2010, debited Rs. 8,68,167/- in the credit amount vide Entry No. 154, dated 1.11.2010 as reversal of credit attributable to the input or input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods and also paid Rs. 7,78,472/- vide TR-6, Challan No. 00415 dated 3.11.2010 as interest @ 24% per annum, which was found verifiable.

8. The aforesaid application under Section 73 was allowed for the period from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2008, but the benefit was declined for the period from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2010 observing that although the assessee had included this period in its application under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 2010 and was maintaining