Amended Cenvat Credit Rule 6(1) required reconsideration for the post-1-3-2015 period after remand.

The demand for the post-1-3-2015 period required fresh examination because the earlier drop was based on the incorrect assumption that the entire dispute fell before that date. Explanation 1 inserted into Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was not examined for the later period, so that part of the order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner for reconsideration of the amended rule's applicability.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand relating to the period after 1-3-2015 required fresh consideration in view of Explanation 1 inserted to Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: The demand had been dropped on the assumption that the entire period involved was prior to 1-3-2015. That factual basis was not available for the portion of the demand relating to the post-1-3-2015 period. As the adjudicating authority had not examined the effect of Explanation 1 inserted with effect from 1-3-2015 on that part of the demand, the matter required reconsideration.

Conclusion: The part of the impugned order covering the post-1-3-2015 period was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision on the applicability of the amended Rule 6(1).

---