<?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>2007 (4) TMI 84 - CESTAT,  CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1867</link>
    <description>Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules applies only to inputs on which credit is availed and which remain subject to the prescribed accounting discipline. Used plastic crates, once received, accounted for and put to use as new inputs, did not require fresh separate accounting for repeated use, so Rule 6(3)(b) liability was not attracted. After the amendment to Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, furnace oil used for both dutiable and exempted goods required separate accounts; in the absence of such accounts, the prescribed percentage under Rule 6(3)(b) was payable. The demand on furnace oil was upheld, but the penalty was reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41249" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 84 - CESTAT,  CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1867</link>
      <description>Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules applies only to inputs on which credit is availed and which remain subject to the prescribed accounting discipline. Used plastic crates, once received, accounted for and put to use as new inputs, did not require fresh separate accounting for repeated use, so Rule 6(3)(b) liability was not attracted. After the amendment to Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, furnace oil used for both dutiable and exempted goods required separate accounts; in the absence of such accounts, the prescribed percentage under Rule 6(3)(b) was payable. The demand on furnace oil was upheld, but the penalty was reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1867</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>