https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2675 Rule 6 did not support a percentage-based demand where the manufacturer cleared both dutiable and exempted goods but took no Cenvat credit on inputs used in exempted goods and maintained separate accounts. A common storage arrangement for some inputs did not, by itself, negate the separate-account finding. On those facts, the proposed payment of 8% or 10% of the value of exempted goods, together with interest and penalty, had no foundation and was unsustainable. en-us Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2675 Rule 6 did not support a percentage-based demand where the manufacturer cleared both dutiable and exempted goods but took no Cenvat credit on inputs used in exempted goods and maintained separate accounts. A common storage arrangement for some inputs did not, by itself, negate the separate-account finding. On those facts, the proposed payment of 8% or 10% of the value of exempted goods, together with interest and penalty, had no foundation and was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2675