https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371659 Non-intimation of the option under Rule 6(3A) for proportionate reversal of common Cenvat credit was treated as a curable procedural lapse, not a defect that extinguished the substantive right to reverse credit. Because the assessee had already reversed proportionate credit before the show-cause notice, and credit on inputs used for exempted goods had not in fact been availed, the higher demand of 6% on exempted clearances was held unsustainable. The record also did not support treating non-maintenance of separate records or audit detection as suppression justifying the enhanced demand. The proportionate reversal was accepted as sufficient compliance. en-us Thu, 06 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Dec 2018 06:36:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371659 Non-intimation of the option under Rule 6(3A) for proportionate reversal of common Cenvat credit was treated as a curable procedural lapse, not a defect that extinguished the substantive right to reverse credit. Because the assessee had already reversed proportionate credit before the show-cause notice, and credit on inputs used for exempted goods had not in fact been availed, the higher demand of 6% on exempted clearances was held unsustainable. The record also did not support treating non-maintenance of separate records or audit detection as suppression justifying the enhanced demand. The proportionate reversal was accepted as sufficient compliance. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 06 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371659