https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335884 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the denial of CENVAT Credit for input services received at a different unit. It upheld the Appellant's argument that credit utilization at a different unit was permissible, following the precedent set by the Karnataka High Court. The Tribunal clarified the interpretation of Rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, emphasizing the entitlement of manufacturers to distribute credit among units as per the law. It rejected the Revenue's argument on the nexus requirement for availing credit, stating that service utilization at the manufacturing unit was not mandatory. Additionally, the Tribunal found the demand notice issued beyond the limitation period invalid, supporting the Appellant's position. en-us Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:49:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335884 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the denial of CENVAT Credit for input services received at a different unit. It upheld the Appellant's argument that credit utilization at a different unit was permissible, following the precedent set by the Karnataka High Court. The Tribunal clarified the interpretation of Rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, emphasizing the entitlement of manufacturers to distribute credit among units as per the law. It rejected the Revenue's argument on the nexus requirement for availing credit, stating that service utilization at the manufacturing unit was not mandatory. Additionally, the Tribunal found the demand notice issued beyond the limitation period invalid, supporting the Appellant's position. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335884