<?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>2023 (10) TMI 1081 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444858</link>
    <description>Belated reversal of ineligible CENVAT credit, together with interest, may amount to effective non-availment where the statutory obligation is ultimately discharged. In a dispute involving common input-service credit for manufacturing and trading activity, the scheme under rule 6 permitted the assessee to choose the mode of neutralisation, and recovery under rule 14 was confined to any actual shortfall. The demand could not be sustained by mechanically applying the default option under rule 6(3) without first verifying whether compliance under the option actually exercised was deficient. The matter was remitted for limited verification of any deficit and consequential recovery, if any.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=730117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (10) TMI 1081 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444858</link>
      <description>Belated reversal of ineligible CENVAT credit, together with interest, may amount to effective non-availment where the statutory obligation is ultimately discharged. In a dispute involving common input-service credit for manufacturing and trading activity, the scheme under rule 6 permitted the assessee to choose the mode of neutralisation, and recovery under rule 14 was confined to any actual shortfall. The demand could not be sustained by mechanically applying the default option under rule 6(3) without first verifying whether compliance under the option actually exercised was deficient. The matter was remitted for limited verification of any deficit and consequential recovery, if any.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444858</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>