<?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>Exemption Denial for Fatty Acid Pitch Overturned Due to Lack of Evidence and Misapplication of Extended Duty Period.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79125</link>
    <description>Captive exemption for Fatty Acid Pitch (FAP), an intermediate product, was denied despite being otherwise excisable, citing Rule 6(3A) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The Adjudicating Authority concluded FAP was used as fuel in boilers producing steam for manufacturing exempted goods based on Audit team&#039;s observations and Appellants&#039; letters, without verifying claims. Extended period invoked despite no evidence of deliberate duty evasion. Appellants provided relevant details, but no further inquiry conducted. Lack of cogent verifiable evidence that FAP was used for exempted products invalidates denial of exemption benefit. Invoking extended period without substantiating assertions is legally untenable. Impugned order unsustainable on merits and limitation, appeal allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2024 08:19:53 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2024 08:19:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=758969" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Exemption Denial for Fatty Acid Pitch Overturned Due to Lack of Evidence and Misapplication of Extended Duty Period.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79125</link>
      <description>Captive exemption for Fatty Acid Pitch (FAP), an intermediate product, was denied despite being otherwise excisable, citing Rule 6(3A) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The Adjudicating Authority concluded FAP was used as fuel in boilers producing steam for manufacturing exempted goods based on Audit team&#039;s observations and Appellants&#039; letters, without verifying claims. Extended period invoked despite no evidence of deliberate duty evasion. Appellants provided relevant details, but no further inquiry conducted. Lack of cogent verifiable evidence that FAP was used for exempted products invalidates denial of exemption benefit. Invoking extended period without substantiating assertions is legally untenable. Impugned order unsustainable on merits and limitation, appeal allowed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2024 08:19:53 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79125</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>