https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408027 The CESTAT NEW DELHI held that a contract manufacturing unit was entitled to CENVAT credit on input services distributed by the principal manufacturer even prior to April 1, 2016. The appellant operated under authorization from the principal manufacturer for contract manufacturing of biscuits under notification 36/2001-CE (NT). The tribunal applied the SC precedent in Dilip Kumar case regarding interpretation of tax exemption provisions, ruling that ambiguities should favor the assessee. The principal manufacturer was justified in distributing input service credits on pro-rata basis proportionate to turnover between its manufacturing plants and contract manufacturing units under CENVAT Rules. The appeal was remanded to Division Bench for final disposal. en-us Tue, 25 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jan 2025 18:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408027 The CESTAT NEW DELHI held that a contract manufacturing unit was entitled to CENVAT credit on input services distributed by the principal manufacturer even prior to April 1, 2016. The appellant operated under authorization from the principal manufacturer for contract manufacturing of biscuits under notification 36/2001-CE (NT). The tribunal applied the SC precedent in Dilip Kumar case regarding interpretation of tax exemption provisions, ruling that ambiguities should favor the assessee. The principal manufacturer was justified in distributing input service credits on pro-rata basis proportionate to turnover between its manufacturing plants and contract manufacturing units under CENVAT Rules. The appeal was remanded to Division Bench for final disposal. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408027