Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a manufacturer clearing both dutiable and exempted goods was bound to maintain separate accounts under Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, or could validly opt under Rule 6(3)(b) to pay 8% of the price of exempted final products without maintaining such accounts.
Analysis: The disputed clearances involved common inputs used in the manufacture of both dutiable and exempted pipes. The Tribunal found the facts materially similar to an earlier decision where it had been held that Rule 6 contemplated two alternative courses: maintaining separate accounts and taking credit only on inputs used for dutiable goods, or not maintaining separate accounts and paying the prescribed amount on exempted clearances. The Tribunal rejected the view that the second option was available only when separate accounts were impossible to maintain. It held that the rule gave the manufacturer a choice, and the revenue could not insist on one course merely because the manufacturer was capable of following it. The argument based on absence of sale was not accepted as a ground to deny the statutory option under Rule 6(3)(b).
Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to avail the option under Rule 6(3)(b) and the demand based on denial of that option was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Where common inputs are used for both dutiable and exempted final products, Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 permits the manufacturer to choose between maintaining separate accounts and paying the prescribed amount on exempted clearances, and the revenue cannot compel the maintenance of separate accounts as a condition for exercising the alternative statutory option.