https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418478 The Tribunal rejected all appeals filed by the Revenue, upholding the impugned orders. It found that the demands for 10% of the value of exempted goods under Rule 6(3) were not sustainable. The Commissioner did not exceed the scope of the remand by examining the cases under Rule 6(2). The respondent complied with Rule 6(2) by taking only 85% of the credit on common input services. Therefore, demands under Rule 14 were not sustainable, and no penalties were imposable under Rule 15. The cross-objections were also disposed of. en-us Wed, 02 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Feb 2022 07:32:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418478 The Tribunal rejected all appeals filed by the Revenue, upholding the impugned orders. It found that the demands for 10% of the value of exempted goods under Rule 6(3) were not sustainable. The Commissioner did not exceed the scope of the remand by examining the cases under Rule 6(2). The respondent complied with Rule 6(2) by taking only 85% of the credit on common input services. Therefore, demands under Rule 14 were not sustainable, and no penalties were imposable under Rule 15. The cross-objections were also disposed of. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418478