https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347855 Cenvat credit attributable to the manufacture of excisable goods was treated as admissible under Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, because the disputed input services were linked to dutiable production rather than to common services requiring apportionment under Rule 6(2), Rule 6(3) or Rule 6(3A). On that basis, the demand built on an assumed obligation to follow Rule 6(3A) was considered to rest on an incorrect foundation. The show cause notices and the orders denying credit were therefore set aside. en-us Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Oct 2017 11:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347855 Cenvat credit attributable to the manufacture of excisable goods was treated as admissible under Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, because the disputed input services were linked to dutiable production rather than to common services requiring apportionment under Rule 6(2), Rule 6(3) or Rule 6(3A). On that basis, the demand built on an assumed obligation to follow Rule 6(3A) was considered to rest on an incorrect foundation. The show cause notices and the orders denying credit were therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347855