https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353039 Cenvat credit could not be denied to a job worker manufacturing goods under Notification No. 214/86-CE merely because Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was invoked on the footing that the goods were exempted. The controlling principle was that Rule 6(1) cannot be applied in isolation where the goods are not exempted in substance, and the fact that the job worker was not required to discharge duty did not make the goods exempted goods. On that basis, the denial of credit was unsustainable and the appellant remained entitled to the Cenvat credit claimed. en-us Wed, 20 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Dec 2017 08:11:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353039 Cenvat credit could not be denied to a job worker manufacturing goods under Notification No. 214/86-CE merely because Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was invoked on the footing that the goods were exempted. The controlling principle was that Rule 6(1) cannot be applied in isolation where the goods are not exempted in substance, and the fact that the job worker was not required to discharge duty did not make the goods exempted goods. On that basis, the denial of credit was unsustainable and the appellant remained entitled to the Cenvat credit claimed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353039