https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776806 CESTAT HYDERABAD - AT allowed the appeal, holding that the practice of permitting cenvat credit only for inputs attributable to dutiable goods is valid and that Rule 6(3)(i) CCR, 2004 does not apply to removals of exempted excisable goods to SEZs and 100% EOUs. Rule 6(6) CCR, 2004 excludes application of sub-rules (1)-(4) for such duty-free removals, so demands for reversal under Rule 6(3) in respect of exempted clearances to SEZ/EOU were unsustainable and the adjudicating authority's order was set aside. en-us Mon, 11 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Aug 2025 08:34:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776806 CESTAT HYDERABAD - AT allowed the appeal, holding that the practice of permitting cenvat credit only for inputs attributable to dutiable goods is valid and that Rule 6(3)(i) CCR, 2004 does not apply to removals of exempted excisable goods to SEZs and 100% EOUs. Rule 6(6) CCR, 2004 excludes application of sub-rules (1)-(4) for such duty-free removals, so demands for reversal under Rule 6(3) in respect of exempted clearances to SEZ/EOU were unsustainable and the adjudicating authority's order was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776806