https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350941 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner and allowing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the appellants were not liable to pay 10% of the total price of exempted goods due to non-compliance with maintaining separate accounts for inputs used in manufacturing excisable goods cleared without duty payment to SEZ. The goods cleared to SEZ Developer were not considered exempted goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules, and the amendment to Rule 6(6) was to be given retrospective effect. The Tribunal held that the impugned order was not sustainable in law based on established judicial precedents. en-us Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Nov 2017 07:02:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350941 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner and allowing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the appellants were not liable to pay 10% of the total price of exempted goods due to non-compliance with maintaining separate accounts for inputs used in manufacturing excisable goods cleared without duty payment to SEZ. The goods cleared to SEZ Developer were not considered exempted goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules, and the amendment to Rule 6(6) was to be given retrospective effect. The Tribunal held that the impugned order was not sustainable in law based on established judicial precedents. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350941