https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125766 A departmental appeal was treated as not maintainable because the review order authorising the appeal was not validly signed by the competent Chief Commissioners, making the authorisation defect fatal. On the substantive issue, the Tribunal stated that where the assessee maintained separate accounts, informed the department in advance about input use, and did not take credit on inputs attributable to exempted goods, mere absence of separate physical storage did not justify a demand under Rule 6 for 8% of the value of exempted goods. The demand was therefore held unsustainable and the assessee obtained relief. en-us Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:52:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125766 A departmental appeal was treated as not maintainable because the review order authorising the appeal was not validly signed by the competent Chief Commissioners, making the authorisation defect fatal. On the substantive issue, the Tribunal stated that where the assessee maintained separate accounts, informed the department in advance about input use, and did not take credit on inputs attributable to exempted goods, mere absence of separate physical storage did not justify a demand under Rule 6 for 8% of the value of exempted goods. The demand was therefore held unsustainable and the assessee obtained relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125766