https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348487 The Tribunal set aside the order confirming the demand equivalent to 10% of the value of exempted goods cleared by the appellant. It ruled that the failure to inform Revenue authorities at the beginning of the year about the intention to reverse proportionate CENVAT credit did not preclude the appellant from exercising the second option under Rule 6(3)(i). The Tribunal found the demand unsustainable both on merit and limitation grounds, ultimately allowing the appeal against the confirmation of the demand related to exempted goods cleared after utilizing CENVAT credit. en-us Mon, 18 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Sep 2017 10:33:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348487 The Tribunal set aside the order confirming the demand equivalent to 10% of the value of exempted goods cleared by the appellant. It ruled that the failure to inform Revenue authorities at the beginning of the year about the intention to reverse proportionate CENVAT credit did not preclude the appellant from exercising the second option under Rule 6(3)(i). The Tribunal found the demand unsustainable both on merit and limitation grounds, ultimately allowing the appeal against the confirmation of the demand related to exempted goods cleared after utilizing CENVAT credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 18 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348487