https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354466 The appellant availed CENVAT Credit for Sponsorship Service at their Akurdi unit, leading to a dispute over the distribution of credit between Akurdi and Pithampur units. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the absence of provisions during the relevant period did not mandate proportionate credit distribution. As the service was solely used at the Akurdi unit, the appellant was entitled to the entire credit. The appeal was allowed, overturning the denial of credit by the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals). en-us Fri, 22 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Feb 2018 17:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354466 The appellant availed CENVAT Credit for Sponsorship Service at their Akurdi unit, leading to a dispute over the distribution of credit between Akurdi and Pithampur units. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the absence of provisions during the relevant period did not mandate proportionate credit distribution. As the service was solely used at the Akurdi unit, the appellant was entitled to the entire credit. The appeal was allowed, overturning the denial of credit by the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals). Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354466