https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343400 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in a case concerning availing Cenvat credit on common input services for dutiable and exempted products. The manufacturer, not maintaining separate accounts, was initially demanded to pay 10% of the value of exempted goods under Rule 6(2). However, as iron ore fines were deemed unavoidable waste, not separate exempted goods, Rule 6(3) did not apply. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that Rule 6(3) applies when both dutiable and exempted final products are consciously manufactured using common credit. The decision clarified the treatment of exempted goods and the proper application of Cenvat credit rules. en-us Mon, 22 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Jun 2017 18:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343400 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in a case concerning availing Cenvat credit on common input services for dutiable and exempted products. The manufacturer, not maintaining separate accounts, was initially demanded to pay 10% of the value of exempted goods under Rule 6(2). However, as iron ore fines were deemed unavoidable waste, not separate exempted goods, Rule 6(3) did not apply. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that Rule 6(3) applies when both dutiable and exempted final products are consciously manufactured using common credit. The decision clarified the treatment of exempted goods and the proper application of Cenvat credit rules. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 22 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343400