https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325906 Where Cenvat credit was taken on common inputs used for both dutiable and exempted products, the liability under Rule 6 was accepted, but the equivalent penalty was held excessive in view of the disclosure of relevant particulars in statutory returns. The text notes that recovery machinery under Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 remained available, that the credit period fell within the 2002 and 2004 Rules, and that the assessee knew the requirement to pay 8% when separate accounts were not maintained. Even so, because the material facts were reflected in periodical returns, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 20,000 under Rule 13(1), while the duty-related findings were left undisturbed. en-us Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Apr 2016 17:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325906 Where Cenvat credit was taken on common inputs used for both dutiable and exempted products, the liability under Rule 6 was accepted, but the equivalent penalty was held excessive in view of the disclosure of relevant particulars in statutory returns. The text notes that recovery machinery under Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 remained available, that the credit period fell within the 2002 and 2004 Rules, and that the assessee knew the requirement to pay 8% when separate accounts were not maintained. Even so, because the material facts were reflected in periodical returns, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 20,000 under Rule 13(1), while the duty-related findings were left undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325906