https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351748 The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's miscellaneous application seeking rectification of an error in the final order regarding the procedure followed under Rule 6(2) and Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal clarified that the appellant did not maintain separate accounts for common input services under Rule 6(2) and found the appellant ineligible to follow both Rule 6(2) and Rule 6(3) simultaneously. As the credit was not eligible, the question of lapsing or denial provision was irrelevant. The Tribunal concluded that there was no discernible mistake apparent from the record warranting interference and dismissed the application. en-us Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Dec 2017 07:42:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351748 The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's miscellaneous application seeking rectification of an error in the final order regarding the procedure followed under Rule 6(2) and Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal clarified that the appellant did not maintain separate accounts for common input services under Rule 6(2) and found the appellant ineligible to follow both Rule 6(2) and Rule 6(3) simultaneously. As the credit was not eligible, the question of lapsing or denial provision was irrelevant. The Tribunal concluded that there was no discernible mistake apparent from the record warranting interference and dismissed the application. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351748