https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369591 The court held that Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules did not apply to the Appellants as the sale of residential units after obtaining the completion certificate was considered a "non-service." The Appellants were found eligible to avail Cenvat Credit under Rule 3 and had maintained separate accounts as required. They were not required to reverse any credit availed during the period when the output service was taxable before receiving the completion certificate. The court ruled in favor of the Appellants, allowing their appeals and granting them a refund of the amount paid under protest. en-us Tue, 23 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Nov 2019 17:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369591 The court held that Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules did not apply to the Appellants as the sale of residential units after obtaining the completion certificate was considered a "non-service." The Appellants were found eligible to avail Cenvat Credit under Rule 3 and had maintained separate accounts as required. They were not required to reverse any credit availed during the period when the output service was taxable before receiving the completion certificate. The court ruled in favor of the Appellants, allowing their appeals and granting them a refund of the amount paid under protest. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 23 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369591