https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390655 The case involved a manufacturer availing CENVAT credit on inputs for exempted goods, leading to a demand for duty, interest, and penalty. The appellant's non-maintenance of separate inventory for input services contravened Rule 6(2) of CCR, 2004. They argued compliance with subsequent rules and cited legal precedents to support their position. The Member found the impugned order unsustainable, setting it aside and allowing the appeal. The judgment emphasized compliance with CENVAT credit rules, legal interpretations, and limitations on demanding amounts under specific provisions. en-us Tue, 07 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jan 2020 10:07:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390655 The case involved a manufacturer availing CENVAT credit on inputs for exempted goods, leading to a demand for duty, interest, and penalty. The appellant's non-maintenance of separate inventory for input services contravened Rule 6(2) of CCR, 2004. They argued compliance with subsequent rules and cited legal precedents to support their position. The Member found the impugned order unsustainable, setting it aside and allowing the appeal. The judgment emphasized compliance with CENVAT credit rules, legal interpretations, and limitations on demanding amounts under specific provisions. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390655