<?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>2010 (2) TMI 396 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77704</link>
    <description>Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was treated as inapplicable where exempt scrap emerged only incidentally during an integrated manufacturing process for dutiable final goods made from the same inputs. The reasoning was that the entire stainless steel flats were consumed in producing dutiable SS cold rolled patta/patti, with no material showing exclusive use of any input for scrap. Because the scrap was only a by-product and not a separate final product arising from divisible input consumption, credit could not be denied on a notional attribution and separate maintenance of accounts was not required. Demand, interest, and penalties based on that provision were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115866" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 396 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77704</link>
      <description>Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was treated as inapplicable where exempt scrap emerged only incidentally during an integrated manufacturing process for dutiable final goods made from the same inputs. The reasoning was that the entire stainless steel flats were consumed in producing dutiable SS cold rolled patta/patti, with no material showing exclusive use of any input for scrap. Because the scrap was only a by-product and not a separate final product arising from divisible input consumption, credit could not be denied on a notional attribution and separate maintenance of accounts was not required. Demand, interest, and penalties based on that provision were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77704</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>