https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220817 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the demand raised under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 was unsustainable. The appellant's clearances to SEZ developers were considered as exports, not exempted goods, and thus, the obligation to maintain separate accounts for inputs or input services under Rule 6(3) did not apply. The Tribunal relied on the precedent of a similar case to overturn the impugned order, clarifying that the appellant was not required to fulfill the demand due to the nature of their clearances. en-us Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Jan 2013 17:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220817 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the demand raised under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 was unsustainable. The appellant's clearances to SEZ developers were considered as exports, not exempted goods, and thus, the obligation to maintain separate accounts for inputs or input services under Rule 6(3) did not apply. The Tribunal relied on the precedent of a similar case to overturn the impugned order, clarifying that the appellant was not required to fulfill the demand due to the nature of their clearances. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220817