https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204848 Where common inputs are used for exempted and dutiable goods, reversal of the credit actually attributable to inputs used in exempted clearances was treated as sufficient compliance with Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, and the demand to pay 8% of the value of exempted goods was rejected. The article also states that an alleged excess refund could not be sustained because the transaction was revenue neutral: the disputed amount would only have remained in the CENVAT account and there was no real revenue loss. On that footing, the Revenue's demand was held unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside. en-us Wed, 04 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Aug 2011 08:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204848 Where common inputs are used for exempted and dutiable goods, reversal of the credit actually attributable to inputs used in exempted clearances was treated as sufficient compliance with Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, and the demand to pay 8% of the value of exempted goods was rejected. The article also states that an alleged excess refund could not be sustained because the transaction was revenue neutral: the disputed amount would only have remained in the CENVAT account and there was no real revenue loss. On that footing, the Revenue's demand was held unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204848