https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356403 The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision upholding a demand of Rs. 7,52,873 against the appellant for wrongly availed Cenvat credit. The Tribunal found the appellant had maintained separate records for common input services, as required by Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not properly considered the appellant's documentation and compliance with the rules, leading to an incorrect confirmation of the demand. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, ruling that the demand could not be sustained. en-us Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Mar 2018 06:32:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356403 The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision upholding a demand of Rs. 7,52,873 against the appellant for wrongly availed Cenvat credit. The Tribunal found the appellant had maintained separate records for common input services, as required by Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not properly considered the appellant's documentation and compliance with the rules, leading to an incorrect confirmation of the demand. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, ruling that the demand could not be sustained. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356403