<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Tribunal Rules on CENVAT Credit: Separate Accounts Required for Inputs in Mixed Manufacturing; Extended Period Not Invoked.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75226</link>
    <description>CENVAT Credit - common inputs/input services used for manufacture of stock transferred exempted goods (lime stone) and dutiable products (Cement/Clinker) - The Tribunal clarified that the presence of two different final products (limestone as exempted and cement/clinker as dutiable) necessitates the maintenance of separate accounts for inputs/input services used. The court rejected the appellant&#039;s interpretation and emphasized that the rules apply to their situation, thus upholding the demand for payment under Rule 6(3)(i) due to the appellant&#039;s failure to maintain separate accounts. - However, the CESTAT agreed with the appellant regarding the limitation period, noting no grounds for invoking the extended period due to the appellant&#039;s transparent documentation and periodic disclosures.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2024 08:34:42 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2024 08:34:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=745015" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Tribunal Rules on CENVAT Credit: Separate Accounts Required for Inputs in Mixed Manufacturing; Extended Period Not Invoked.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75226</link>
      <description>CENVAT Credit - common inputs/input services used for manufacture of stock transferred exempted goods (lime stone) and dutiable products (Cement/Clinker) - The Tribunal clarified that the presence of two different final products (limestone as exempted and cement/clinker as dutiable) necessitates the maintenance of separate accounts for inputs/input services used. The court rejected the appellant&#039;s interpretation and emphasized that the rules apply to their situation, thus upholding the demand for payment under Rule 6(3)(i) due to the appellant&#039;s failure to maintain separate accounts. - However, the CESTAT agreed with the appellant regarding the limitation period, noting no grounds for invoking the extended period due to the appellant&#039;s transparent documentation and periodic disclosures.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2024 08:34:42 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75226</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>