https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362468 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's decision to reject the appellant's claim for CENVAT credit on common input services used for trading activities. The Tribunal found that the appellant had maintained separate records for inputs used exclusively in manufacturing and trading, did not avail credit for trading activities, and complied with Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The Tribunal held that the non-filing of intimation under Rule 6 was a procedural irregularity that did not hinder credit reversal, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant. en-us Wed, 20 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jul 2018 13:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362468 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's decision to reject the appellant's claim for CENVAT credit on common input services used for trading activities. The Tribunal found that the appellant had maintained separate records for inputs used exclusively in manufacturing and trading, did not avail credit for trading activities, and complied with Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The Tribunal held that the non-filing of intimation under Rule 6 was a procedural irregularity that did not hinder credit reversal, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362468