https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348799 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA allowed the appeals filed by the appellant, holding that the appellant had successfully reversed the amount of credit used for non-taxable services as evidenced by their documentation. The Tribunal clarified that the failure to intimate the department about the option exercised under Rule 6(3A) does not automatically enforce payment under the first option of Rule 6(3)(i). The judgment provided clarity on the procedural aspects of Rule 6(3A) and upheld the appellant's argument regarding the reversal of credit for non-taxable services, resulting in a favorable outcome for the appellant. en-us Wed, 08 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Sep 2017 11:56:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348799 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA allowed the appeals filed by the appellant, holding that the appellant had successfully reversed the amount of credit used for non-taxable services as evidenced by their documentation. The Tribunal clarified that the failure to intimate the department about the option exercised under Rule 6(3A) does not automatically enforce payment under the first option of Rule 6(3)(i). The judgment provided clarity on the procedural aspects of Rule 6(3A) and upheld the appellant's argument regarding the reversal of credit for non-taxable services, resulting in a favorable outcome for the appellant. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 08 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348799