<?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 (7) TMI 871 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155761</link>
    <description>Goods cleared partly on payment of duty and partly under a conditional exemption remained excisable and dutiable for Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The tribunal held that partial exemption for specified clearances did not change the character of the goods into non-dutiable or fully exempt goods, so the common-input credit restriction continued to apply. Because the manufacturer did not maintain separate accounts for dutiable and exempt clearances, the demand based on Rule 6 was sustained. Prior decisions under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were treated as persuasive because the provisions were considered pari materia.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2017 14:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172788" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 871 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155761</link>
      <description>Goods cleared partly on payment of duty and partly under a conditional exemption remained excisable and dutiable for Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The tribunal held that partial exemption for specified clearances did not change the character of the goods into non-dutiable or fully exempt goods, so the common-input credit restriction continued to apply. Because the manufacturer did not maintain separate accounts for dutiable and exempt clearances, the demand based on Rule 6 was sustained. Prior decisions under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were treated as persuasive because the provisions were considered pari materia.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155761</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>