https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757202 The CESTAT Chennai held that denial of exemption under Notification 30/2004-CE was incorrect where the appellant had availed input credit on all inputs under CCR and reversed 5% of invoice value under Rule 6(3) of CCR when notification benefit was claimed. Following the SC decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I v. Bombay Dyeing Mfg. Co. Ltd., the tribunal found that since the appellant reversed the credit at the time of clearance of exempted goods after initially availing credit on inputs partially used for exempted goods, the notification conditions were satisfied. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed. en-us Tue, 25 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:25:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757202 The CESTAT Chennai held that denial of exemption under Notification 30/2004-CE was incorrect where the appellant had availed input credit on all inputs under CCR and reversed 5% of invoice value under Rule 6(3) of CCR when notification benefit was claimed. Following the SC decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I v. Bombay Dyeing Mfg. Co. Ltd., the tribunal found that since the appellant reversed the credit at the time of clearance of exempted goods after initially availing credit on inputs partially used for exempted goods, the notification conditions were satisfied. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757202