https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407562 Where an assessee opts for proportionate reversal under Rule 6(3)(ii) and reverses the attributable Cenvat credit under Rule 6(3A), the Revenue cannot replace that mechanism with the higher percentage-based demand under Rule 6(3)(i) merely by alleging procedural non-compliance. The Tribunal held that alleged defects in following the prescribed procedure do not, by themselves, render the chosen option ineffective or justify shifting the liability to the alternative rule. As the attributable credit had been reversed, the demand under Rule 6(3)(i) was unsustainable and the matter was decided in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 12 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 May 2021 08:33:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407562 Where an assessee opts for proportionate reversal under Rule 6(3)(ii) and reverses the attributable Cenvat credit under Rule 6(3A), the Revenue cannot replace that mechanism with the higher percentage-based demand under Rule 6(3)(i) merely by alleging procedural non-compliance. The Tribunal held that alleged defects in following the prescribed procedure do not, by themselves, render the chosen option ineffective or justify shifting the liability to the alternative rule. As the attributable credit had been reversed, the demand under Rule 6(3)(i) was unsustainable and the matter was decided in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407562