https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341618 Excess utilisation of Cenvat credit under Rule 6(3)(c) was treated as a restriction on monthly utilisation, not on availment of credit, so any demand could not be confirmed as duty without verifying whether the effect was only deferment of cash payment in the later period. Reversal of proportionate credit attributable to exempted services was recognised as relevant compliance, and the mere absence of separate accounts was held insufficient without checking the correctness of the quantified reversal. The limitation defence, including departmental knowledge and disclosure in returns, also required fresh consideration. The matter was therefore remanded for de novo adjudication with verification of utilisation, reversal, and limitation. en-us Mon, 17 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Apr 2017 07:03:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341618 Excess utilisation of Cenvat credit under Rule 6(3)(c) was treated as a restriction on monthly utilisation, not on availment of credit, so any demand could not be confirmed as duty without verifying whether the effect was only deferment of cash payment in the later period. Reversal of proportionate credit attributable to exempted services was recognised as relevant compliance, and the mere absence of separate accounts was held insufficient without checking the correctness of the quantified reversal. The limitation defence, including departmental knowledge and disclosure in returns, also required fresh consideration. The matter was therefore remanded for de novo adjudication with verification of utilisation, reversal, and limitation. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 17 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341618