<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (7) TMI 811 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409969</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s. Castrol India Ltd., allowing their appeal on the eligibility of Cenvat credit for common input services used in trading activities. The appellant&#039;s voluntary reversal of credit satisfied the procedural requirements under Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, leading to the Tribunal setting aside the demand for credit reversal related to trading activities. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the appellant had complied with the credit reversal requirement under Rule 6(3A) and dismissed the department&#039;s demand for further credit reversal. The Tribunal also rejected the department&#039;s claim on limitation grounds, ultimately providing consequential relief to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2021 18:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=650273" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (7) TMI 811 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409969</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s. Castrol India Ltd., allowing their appeal on the eligibility of Cenvat credit for common input services used in trading activities. The appellant&#039;s voluntary reversal of credit satisfied the procedural requirements under Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, leading to the Tribunal setting aside the demand for credit reversal related to trading activities. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the appellant had complied with the credit reversal requirement under Rule 6(3A) and dismissed the department&#039;s demand for further credit reversal. The Tribunal also rejected the department&#039;s claim on limitation grounds, ultimately providing consequential relief to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409969</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>