https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265596 Where 10% of the value of HDEP pipes used in manufacture had already been paid under Rule 6(3)(B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, a separate demand of 10% on the value of the sprinkler systems cleared from the factory was not legally sustainable. The Tribunal, following its earlier view in the same assessee's case, held that the prescribed payment on the input pipes discharged the relevant obligation and the assessee could not be fastened again with a further liability based on the finished sprinkler systems. The demand, together with interest and penalty, was therefore set aside. en-us Fri, 10 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Sep 2015 10:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265596 Where 10% of the value of HDEP pipes used in manufacture had already been paid under Rule 6(3)(B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, a separate demand of 10% on the value of the sprinkler systems cleared from the factory was not legally sustainable. The Tribunal, following its earlier view in the same assessee's case, held that the prescribed payment on the input pipes discharged the relevant obligation and the assessee could not be fastened again with a further liability based on the finished sprinkler systems. The demand, together with interest and penalty, was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265596