Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, for reversal under Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the "total Cenvat credit" includes credit on input services used exclusively for dutiable goods, and whether the 01.03.2016 substitution of Rule 6(3A) applies retrospectively as a clarificatory amendment.
Analysis: The dispute concerned the computation base for reversal in a mixed activity situation involving dutiable manufacture and exempted trading activity. The Tribunal held that Rule 6 is concerned with common input services and credit relatable to exempted activity, and does not extend to input services used exclusively in the manufacture of dutiable goods. It further held that the substitution introduced by Notification No. 13/2016-C.E. (N.T.) dated 01.03.2016 is clarificatory in nature and, therefore, operates retrospectively. The appellant had produced a detailed computation and a Chartered Accountant certificate showing proportionate reversal of eligible credit, and there was no finding rejecting that computation on merits.
Conclusion: The demand could not be sustained on the computation adopted in the impugned order, and the appellant's proportionate reversal approach was accepted.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: For reversal under Rule 6(3A), only common input service credit relatable to exempted output is to be considered, and a clarificatory substitution of the rule operates retrospectively.