https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266804 The appellant's appeal against the liability to pay 10% under Rule 6(3) of CCR was dismissed due to failure to maintain separate accounts for inputs and non-compliance with procedural requirements. The appeal filed by the revenue was allowed, requiring payment of duty under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The appellant was found liable to pay duty for not maintaining separate records of inputs consumed in manufacturing, but was entitled to a refund of amounts paid during the appeal process due to substantial compliance with procedural requirements. en-us Mon, 14 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Oct 2015 07:52:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266804 The appellant's appeal against the liability to pay 10% under Rule 6(3) of CCR was dismissed due to failure to maintain separate accounts for inputs and non-compliance with procedural requirements. The appeal filed by the revenue was allowed, requiring payment of duty under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The appellant was found liable to pay duty for not maintaining separate records of inputs consumed in manufacturing, but was entitled to a refund of amounts paid during the appeal process due to substantial compliance with procedural requirements. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 14 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266804