https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430646 Services rendered in Jammu and Kashmir were outside the service tax levy because the Finance Act, 1994 did not extend to that territory, and they were not treated as exempted services for Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The separate-account requirement under Rule 6(2) therefore did not apply on that basis. Where the assessee had already reversed proportionate Cenvat credit attributable to the disputed common input services, the percentage-based demand of 5%/6%/7% under Rule 6 was not sustainable, because proportionate reversal achieved the rule's object and the higher liability could not be imposed mechanically. en-us Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Nov 2022 15:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430646 Services rendered in Jammu and Kashmir were outside the service tax levy because the Finance Act, 1994 did not extend to that territory, and they were not treated as exempted services for Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The separate-account requirement under Rule 6(2) therefore did not apply on that basis. Where the assessee had already reversed proportionate Cenvat credit attributable to the disputed common input services, the percentage-based demand of 5%/6%/7% under Rule 6 was not sustainable, because proportionate reversal achieved the rule's object and the higher liability could not be imposed mechanically. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430646