https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356302 Clearance of goods under Chapter X against CT-2 certificates was treated as distinct from clearance of wholly exempt or nil-rate goods, so the rule requiring reversal of Cenvat credit on exempt clearances did not apply. On the facts found, Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 was therefore inapplicable to the disputed clearances, and the demand, penalty and consequential levy based on credit reversal were set aside in favour of the assessee. The extended period issue was raised, but the operative basis of relief was the inapplicability of the reversal provision to the clearance mechanism used. en-us Fri, 05 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Mar 2018 07:37:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356302 Clearance of goods under Chapter X against CT-2 certificates was treated as distinct from clearance of wholly exempt or nil-rate goods, so the rule requiring reversal of Cenvat credit on exempt clearances did not apply. On the facts found, Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 was therefore inapplicable to the disputed clearances, and the demand, penalty and consequential levy based on credit reversal were set aside in favour of the assessee. The extended period issue was raised, but the operative basis of relief was the inapplicability of the reversal provision to the clearance mechanism used. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356302