https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406553 The appeal against the demand under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was allowed. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing steel furniture, successfully argued that separate accounts for inputs were unnecessary as they primarily manufactured dutiable goods and some clearances were duty-free under a specific notification. The appellant's regular filing of ER-1 returns disclosing goods cleared without duty payment rendered the extended period of limitation inapplicable. The decision in a previous case involving wholly exempted goods was deemed irrelevant, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and granting of consequential relief. en-us Fri, 19 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Jan 2022 15:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406553 The appeal against the demand under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was allowed. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing steel furniture, successfully argued that separate accounts for inputs were unnecessary as they primarily manufactured dutiable goods and some clearances were duty-free under a specific notification. The appellant's regular filing of ER-1 returns disclosing goods cleared without duty payment rendered the extended period of limitation inapplicable. The decision in a previous case involving wholly exempted goods was deemed irrelevant, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and granting of consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406553