https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428337 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand and penalty imposed by the Department. It held that the Appellant's reversal of credit attributable to common input services used in the manufacture of exempted goods was sufficient compliance, and procedural non-compliance did not justify the mechanical application of the 5% or 6% rule. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked due to the lack of evidence of deliberate suppression or misstatement by the Appellant. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief. en-us Tue, 27 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Sep 2022 09:40:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428337 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand and penalty imposed by the Department. It held that the Appellant's reversal of credit attributable to common input services used in the manufacture of exempted goods was sufficient compliance, and procedural non-compliance did not justify the mechanical application of the 5% or 6% rule. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked due to the lack of evidence of deliberate suppression or misstatement by the Appellant. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 27 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428337