https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336734 The Tribunal held that the appellant's choice to reverse proportionate Cenvat credit under Rule 6(3)(ii) was valid, rejecting the department's insistence on Rule 6(3)(i). The failure to exercise the option in writing under Rule 6(3A)(a) was deemed a procedural lapse, not affecting the chosen method's validity. The appellant's payment exceeding the required amount was considered sufficient, and cited judgments supported their position. The demand for further reversal was set aside, emphasizing that procedural lapses should not impose undue financial burdens. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, affirming compliance with relevant provisions. en-us Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Dec 2016 07:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336734 The Tribunal held that the appellant's choice to reverse proportionate Cenvat credit under Rule 6(3)(ii) was valid, rejecting the department's insistence on Rule 6(3)(i). The failure to exercise the option in writing under Rule 6(3A)(a) was deemed a procedural lapse, not affecting the chosen method's validity. The appellant's payment exceeding the required amount was considered sufficient, and cited judgments supported their position. The demand for further reversal was set aside, emphasizing that procedural lapses should not impose undue financial burdens. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, affirming compliance with relevant provisions. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336734