https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219663 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicants in a case concerning the demand of duty for not maintaining separate accounts for input services used in manufacturing and trading activities. It was found that the applicants did not take proportionate credit for input services attributable to trading activity, making Rule 6(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 applicable instead of Rule 6(2). Consequently, the applicants were not liable to pay duty on the value of traded goods. The Tribunal also determined that the extended period of limitation for the demand under the show-cause notice was not applicable, leading to a waiver of the pre-deposit requirement and a stay on recovery. en-us Mon, 24 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Dec 2012 10:00:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219663 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicants in a case concerning the demand of duty for not maintaining separate accounts for input services used in manufacturing and trading activities. It was found that the applicants did not take proportionate credit for input services attributable to trading activity, making Rule 6(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 applicable instead of Rule 6(2). Consequently, the applicants were not liable to pay duty on the value of traded goods. The Tribunal also determined that the extended period of limitation for the demand under the show-cause notice was not applicable, leading to a waiver of the pre-deposit requirement and a stay on recovery. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219663