https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446488 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal challenging CENVAT credit demand. The Commissioner had applied Rule 6(3)(i) demanding 5%/6% of entire credit amount, finding common input services were used for both manufacturing and trading activities based on common Balance Sheet maintenance. CESTAT held that Rule 6(3)(i) cannot be automatically applied without written intimation of option exercise to jurisdictional officer. The appellant had disputed using common input services for trading but accepted audit observations to settle dispute. Since proportionate reversal was made in compliance with audit report within department's knowledge, written intimation would add no advantage. The Commissioner's order was set aside. en-us Mon, 04 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Dec 2023 08:56:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446488 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal challenging CENVAT credit demand. The Commissioner had applied Rule 6(3)(i) demanding 5%/6% of entire credit amount, finding common input services were used for both manufacturing and trading activities based on common Balance Sheet maintenance. CESTAT held that Rule 6(3)(i) cannot be automatically applied without written intimation of option exercise to jurisdictional officer. The appellant had disputed using common input services for trading but accepted audit observations to settle dispute. Since proportionate reversal was made in compliance with audit report within department's knowledge, written intimation would add no advantage. The Commissioner's order was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446488