https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295197 Cenvat credit lawfully taken on inputs, capital goods and input services and kept in a common pool was held capable of cross-utilisation against both excise duty and service tax liabilities, because the rules contained no express prohibition on such use. Rule 3(1) was read as permitting credit on the specified levies, while Rule 7 was treated as governing distribution of credit rather than restricting utilisation. On that basis, the demand confirmed by the lower authorities could not be sustained, and the interest and penalty were also set aside in favour of the assessee. en-us Fri, 13 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 May 2021 08:35:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295197 Cenvat credit lawfully taken on inputs, capital goods and input services and kept in a common pool was held capable of cross-utilisation against both excise duty and service tax liabilities, because the rules contained no express prohibition on such use. Rule 3(1) was read as permitting credit on the specified levies, while Rule 7 was treated as governing distribution of credit rather than restricting utilisation. On that basis, the demand confirmed by the lower authorities could not be sustained, and the interest and penalty were also set aside in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295197