https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351060 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant could avail cenvat credit for trading activity and common input services before 1.4.2011. It found no nexus between trading and manufacturing activities, rejecting the Revenue's claim. The demand for 6% of traded goods' value was set aside. The Tribunal also ruled that the extended limitation period was not invocable due to lack of evidence, leading to a remand for proper quantification within the limitation period. Consequently, no penalty was imposed on the appellant, and the appeal was disposed of in their favor. en-us Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Jan 2018 18:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351060 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant could avail cenvat credit for trading activity and common input services before 1.4.2011. It found no nexus between trading and manufacturing activities, rejecting the Revenue's claim. The demand for 6% of traded goods' value was set aside. The Tribunal also ruled that the extended limitation period was not invocable due to lack of evidence, leading to a remand for proper quantification within the limitation period. Consequently, no penalty was imposed on the appellant, and the appeal was disposed of in their favor. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351060