https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765372 In the case before CESTAT Ahmedabad, the issue was whether Ammonium Sulphate used in urea production was liable for duty under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules from May 2015 to March 2016. The appellant claimed exemption but paid 1% duty, while the Department argued for 5%. The Tribunal found the issue settled by precedent, ruling that Ammonium Sulphate was not liable under Rule 6(3). The appeal was allowed, granting the appellant consequential relief. en-us Mon, 27 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Jan 2025 07:54:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765372 In the case before CESTAT Ahmedabad, the issue was whether Ammonium Sulphate used in urea production was liable for duty under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules from May 2015 to March 2016. The appellant claimed exemption but paid 1% duty, while the Department argued for 5%. The Tribunal found the issue settled by precedent, ruling that Ammonium Sulphate was not liable under Rule 6(3). The appeal was allowed, granting the appellant consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765372