https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262107 CESTAT Mumbai-AT ruled in favor of appellant regarding Cenvat Credit reversal under Rule 6 of CCR. Appellant had used common input services for both manufacturing and trading of cars, requiring payment of credit attributed to exempted services. Revenue demanded 5% of total sale value under Rule 6(3)(i), but appellant had opted for Rule 6(3)(ii) and paid actual credit under Rule 6(3A) with interest. Tribunal held that assessee can choose any of three available options under Rule 6(3), and revenue cannot insist on a particular option. Since appellant properly exercised their chosen option and complied with payment requirements, the demand was unsustainable and set aside. en-us Thu, 16 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 May 2025 12:11:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262107 CESTAT Mumbai-AT ruled in favor of appellant regarding Cenvat Credit reversal under Rule 6 of CCR. Appellant had used common input services for both manufacturing and trading of cars, requiring payment of credit attributed to exempted services. Revenue demanded 5% of total sale value under Rule 6(3)(i), but appellant had opted for Rule 6(3)(ii) and paid actual credit under Rule 6(3A) with interest. Tribunal held that assessee can choose any of three available options under Rule 6(3), and revenue cannot insist on a particular option. Since appellant properly exercised their chosen option and complied with payment requirements, the demand was unsustainable and set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 16 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262107