https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355042 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, ALLAHABAD ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the interpretation of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal held that the removal of inputs "as such" by a manufacturer does not constitute a trading activity. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and both appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant, providing relief and emphasizing the Tribunal's interpretation of the relevant legal provisions. en-us Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Feb 2018 07:44:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355042 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, ALLAHABAD ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the interpretation of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal held that the removal of inputs "as such" by a manufacturer does not constitute a trading activity. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and both appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant, providing relief and emphasizing the Tribunal's interpretation of the relevant legal provisions. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355042