https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458719 Where disputed bulk drugs and formulations were specifically covered by Notification No. 6/2003-CE prescribing nil duty, a demand under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 could not be sustained merely by reference to earlier decisions arising in different factual and legal settings. The Telangana HC held that the Tribunal correctly distinguished Texmo Industries and Ballarpur Industries because those authorities did not govern goods expressly exempted by notification. On that basis, the 10% liability under Rule 6(3)(b) was not attracted and the order in favour of the assessee was upheld. en-us Thu, 04 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:29:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458719 Where disputed bulk drugs and formulations were specifically covered by Notification No. 6/2003-CE prescribing nil duty, a demand under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 could not be sustained merely by reference to earlier decisions arising in different factual and legal settings. The Telangana HC held that the Tribunal correctly distinguished Texmo Industries and Ballarpur Industries because those authorities did not govern goods expressly exempted by notification. On that basis, the 10% liability under Rule 6(3)(b) was not attracted and the order in favour of the assessee was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 04 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458719