https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329157 The CESTAT Hyderabad ruled in favor of the assessee regarding Cenvat Credit under Rule 6. The department contended that failure to provide written intimation of option under Rule 6(3A) automatically bound the appellant to pay duty under the first option. The tribunal held that Rule 6(3A) is merely procedural for implementing Rule 6(3) and does not restrict the assessee's choice between payment options or credit reversal. The requirement to intimate the department is not mandatory, and failure to do so does not automatically invoke Rule 6(3)(i). The demand was deemed illegal and improper. en-us Thu, 21 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 May 2025 12:20:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329157 The CESTAT Hyderabad ruled in favor of the assessee regarding Cenvat Credit under Rule 6. The department contended that failure to provide written intimation of option under Rule 6(3A) automatically bound the appellant to pay duty under the first option. The tribunal held that Rule 6(3A) is merely procedural for implementing Rule 6(3) and does not restrict the assessee's choice between payment options or credit reversal. The requirement to intimate the department is not mandatory, and failure to do so does not automatically invoke Rule 6(3)(i). The demand was deemed illegal and improper. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329157