<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (10) TMI 347 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76600</link>
    <description>Reversal of Cenvat credit attributable to exempted clearances, together with applicable interest, neutralises the effect of common credit and constitutes adequate compliance with Rule 6 even where separate accounts for common inputs and input services were not maintained. The resulting demand is unsustainable because no credit remains attributable to exempted goods. Interest and equal penalty also cannot survive once the credit is reversed. Penalty requires a reliable finding of dishonest conduct, deliberate suppression, or intent to evade; differing judicial interpretations on the liability indicate a debatable legal position and do not justify penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114802" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (10) TMI 347 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76600</link>
      <description>Reversal of Cenvat credit attributable to exempted clearances, together with applicable interest, neutralises the effect of common credit and constitutes adequate compliance with Rule 6 even where separate accounts for common inputs and input services were not maintained. The resulting demand is unsustainable because no credit remains attributable to exempted goods. Interest and equal penalty also cannot survive once the credit is reversed. Penalty requires a reliable finding of dishonest conduct, deliberate suppression, or intent to evade; differing judicial interpretations on the liability indicate a debatable legal position and do not justify penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76600</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>