<?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>2013 (2) TMI 34 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220622</link>
    <description>Where common inputs are used for both dutiable and exempted goods, Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules permits compliance through reversal or payment of the credit attributable to exempted goods under Rule 6(3)(a), even if separate accounts are not maintained. The text states that the assessee had reversed the credit relatable to the exempt goods before clearance, which satisfied the statutory requirement, and the later retrospective amendment supported payment either before or after clearance. The contrary Revenue reliance on a case concerning Rule 6(3)(b) was said to be inapplicable. On that basis, denial of exemption, confirmation of duty, and penalty were stated to be unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193984" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (2) TMI 34 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220622</link>
      <description>Where common inputs are used for both dutiable and exempted goods, Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules permits compliance through reversal or payment of the credit attributable to exempted goods under Rule 6(3)(a), even if separate accounts are not maintained. The text states that the assessee had reversed the credit relatable to the exempt goods before clearance, which satisfied the statutory requirement, and the later retrospective amendment supported payment either before or after clearance. The contrary Revenue reliance on a case concerning Rule 6(3)(b) was said to be inapplicable. On that basis, denial of exemption, confirmation of duty, and penalty were stated to be unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220622</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>