https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330548 Reversal of common Cenvat credit with interest was treated as neutralising the alleged availment of credit, so the credit was regarded as never having been taken. On that reasoning, a demand under Rule 6(3)(b) for failure to maintain separate accounts between exempted and dutiable goods could not survive once the credit had already been reversed. The order notes that the demand, computed as a percentage of exempted turnover, was therefore unjustified and follows earlier Tribunal and Supreme Court authorities applying the same principle. en-us Fri, 10 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Jul 2016 17:53:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330548 Reversal of common Cenvat credit with interest was treated as neutralising the alleged availment of credit, so the credit was regarded as never having been taken. On that reasoning, a demand under Rule 6(3)(b) for failure to maintain separate accounts between exempted and dutiable goods could not survive once the credit had already been reversed. The order notes that the demand, computed as a percentage of exempted turnover, was therefore unjustified and follows earlier Tribunal and Supreme Court authorities applying the same principle. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330548