https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349116 For the pre-01.04.2011 period, common input services used for both manufacturing and trading could not give rise to CENVAT credit to the extent attributable to trading activity, because trading was not separately recognised in the credit regime then in force. The appellant did not dispute the attribution of credit to trading, and binding precedent held that such credit was inadmissible. The same precedent also upheld penalty for irregular availment and rejected the contention that penalty was not imposable under the rule. The impugned order was therefore upheld and the appeal rejected. en-us Tue, 29 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Oct 2017 08:56:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349116 For the pre-01.04.2011 period, common input services used for both manufacturing and trading could not give rise to CENVAT credit to the extent attributable to trading activity, because trading was not separately recognised in the credit regime then in force. The appellant did not dispute the attribution of credit to trading, and binding precedent held that such credit was inadmissible. The same precedent also upheld penalty for irregular availment and rejected the contention that penalty was not imposable under the rule. The impugned order was therefore upheld and the appeal rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349116