https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445574 The Tribunal set aside the original authority's order, which demanded repayment of cenvat credit availed on common input services used for both trading and manufacturing activities. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the show cause notice and emphasized that the appellant should choose the option under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, not the Revenue. The case was remanded to the original authority to determine the cenvat credit attributable to trading activities based on the appellant's data. The appellant, as an Input Service Distributor, was directed to cooperate with Revenue to facilitate this determination. en-us Wed, 08 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Nov 2023 14:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445574 The Tribunal set aside the original authority's order, which demanded repayment of cenvat credit availed on common input services used for both trading and manufacturing activities. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the show cause notice and emphasized that the appellant should choose the option under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, not the Revenue. The case was remanded to the original authority to determine the cenvat credit attributable to trading activities based on the appellant's data. The appellant, as an Input Service Distributor, was directed to cooperate with Revenue to facilitate this determination. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445574