https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352045 The appellant, involved in manufacturing various alcohol products, faced allegations of wrongly availing Cenvat credit on molasses. The dispute centered on whether Un-Denatured Ethyl Alcohol was excisable exempted goods, leading to a demand for credit reversal under Rule 6(3)(a). The appellant contested the necessity of maintaining separate accounts and the reversal of 10% credit under Rule 6(3)(b). The case hinged on the classification of Un-Denatured Ethyl Alcohol and compliance with Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, guided by a remand order from the Madras High Court. Ultimately, the court upheld the department's demand for credit reversal, emphasizing compliance with Cenvat rules. en-us Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Mar 2019 14:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352045 The appellant, involved in manufacturing various alcohol products, faced allegations of wrongly availing Cenvat credit on molasses. The dispute centered on whether Un-Denatured Ethyl Alcohol was excisable exempted goods, leading to a demand for credit reversal under Rule 6(3)(a). The appellant contested the necessity of maintaining separate accounts and the reversal of 10% credit under Rule 6(3)(b). The case hinged on the classification of Un-Denatured Ethyl Alcohol and compliance with Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, guided by a remand order from the Madras High Court. Ultimately, the court upheld the department's demand for credit reversal, emphasizing compliance with Cenvat rules. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352045