<?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>2016 (11) TMI 994 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334976</link>
    <description>Where common duty-paid inputs are used to manufacture both exempted and dutiable final products, maintenance of separate accounts is the governing requirement under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In the absence of separate accounts, reversal or payment of the credit attributable to the exempted goods constitutes sufficient compliance. Applying that principle, the Tribunal treated rectified spirit as an exempt product and denatured spirit as a dutiable product, found that proportionate reversal had been made, and held that the CENVAT credit could not be denied. The demand for recovery of credit and the impugned orders were therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Nov 2016 19:16:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=449025" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 994 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334976</link>
      <description>Where common duty-paid inputs are used to manufacture both exempted and dutiable final products, maintenance of separate accounts is the governing requirement under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In the absence of separate accounts, reversal or payment of the credit attributable to the exempted goods constitutes sufficient compliance. Applying that principle, the Tribunal treated rectified spirit as an exempt product and denatured spirit as a dutiable product, found that proportionate reversal had been made, and held that the CENVAT credit could not be denied. The demand for recovery of credit and the impugned orders were therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334976</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>