https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239274 A dispute over alleged irregular availment of Cenvat credit on input services for taxable and exempted output services turned on the absence of separate accounts and the applicability of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, alongside recovery under Rule 14 read with Section 75 of the Finance Act. In the pending appeal, interim protection against recovery was not granted unconditionally; waiver of pre-deposit and stay of further proceedings were made subject to deposit of 80% of the Cenvat credit amount ordered to be recovered, together with corresponding interest. en-us Mon, 01 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Nov 2013 10:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239274 A dispute over alleged irregular availment of Cenvat credit on input services for taxable and exempted output services turned on the absence of separate accounts and the applicability of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, alongside recovery under Rule 14 read with Section 75 of the Finance Act. In the pending appeal, interim protection against recovery was not granted unconditionally; waiver of pre-deposit and stay of further proceedings were made subject to deposit of 80% of the Cenvat credit amount ordered to be recovered, together with corresponding interest. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 01 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239274