https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342052 A demand for reversal of the entire input service credit was held unsustainable because the adjudicating authority confirmed a liability beyond the scope of the show cause notice. On the substantive issue, credit remained admissible for input services used in dutiable products, and the proportionate credit attributable to exempted products had already been reversed with interest. Non-intimation of the option under Rule 6(3A) did not, by itself, justify demanding the full credit or the alternate 6% amount when proportionate reversal had been made. en-us Mon, 20 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:22:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342052 A demand for reversal of the entire input service credit was held unsustainable because the adjudicating authority confirmed a liability beyond the scope of the show cause notice. On the substantive issue, credit remained admissible for input services used in dutiable products, and the proportionate credit attributable to exempted products had already been reversed with interest. Non-intimation of the option under Rule 6(3A) did not, by itself, justify demanding the full credit or the alternate 6% amount when proportionate reversal had been made. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 20 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342052