https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115721 Where Cenvat credit was taken on inputs used in both exempted and dutiable goods, Rule 6 required payment of an amount equal to 8% of the value of exempted clearances if separate input records were not maintained. Because the assessee itself made the 8% debit while clearing goods under exemption notifications, it could not later argue that the goods were neither exempt nor liable at nil rate to recover that amount. The refund claim was therefore not maintainable and was rejected. en-us Sat, 30 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:11:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115721 Where Cenvat credit was taken on inputs used in both exempted and dutiable goods, Rule 6 required payment of an amount equal to 8% of the value of exempted clearances if separate input records were not maintained. Because the assessee itself made the 8% debit while clearing goods under exemption notifications, it could not later argue that the goods were neither exempt nor liable at nil rate to recover that amount. The refund claim was therefore not maintainable and was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 30 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115721