https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412853 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing them to claim the full Cenvat Credit amount for one unit only, despite common input services being used in multiple units. The tribunal emphasized the discretionary nature of credit distribution before the 2016 amendment to Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, highlighting that the appellant's decision to avail the credit in one unit was not illegal. Precedents such as Oerlikon Balzers Coating India Pvt Ltd and Hindustan Zinc Ltd supported the appellant's argument, emphasizing the flexibility available to entities in distributing credits among their units. en-us Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Jan 2022 10:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412853 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing them to claim the full Cenvat Credit amount for one unit only, despite common input services being used in multiple units. The tribunal emphasized the discretionary nature of credit distribution before the 2016 amendment to Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, highlighting that the appellant's decision to avail the credit in one unit was not illegal. Precedents such as Oerlikon Balzers Coating India Pvt Ltd and Hindustan Zinc Ltd supported the appellant's argument, emphasizing the flexibility available to entities in distributing credits among their units. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412853