https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448115 The CESTAT Mumbai held that the appellant's CENVAT credit denial was incorrect. The revenue authorities wrongly applied Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, requiring proportionate credit reversal for exempted services. The tribunal found that the appellant's machining activities of shafts and rollers fell under Central Excise Act provisions via Notification No. 214/86-CE, not service tax provisions. Since the appellant had been allowed Central Excise notification benefits for decades, their activities constituted excise-covered operations rather than taxable services. The tribunal distinguished the case from Hema Engineering Industries Ltd., noting insufficient determination of whether appellant was processing intermediate products or manufacturing. The appeal was allowed, establishing that long-standing Central Excise treatment precludes service tax characterization. en-us Tue, 09 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448115 The CESTAT Mumbai held that the appellant's CENVAT credit denial was incorrect. The revenue authorities wrongly applied Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, requiring proportionate credit reversal for exempted services. The tribunal found that the appellant's machining activities of shafts and rollers fell under Central Excise Act provisions via Notification No. 214/86-CE, not service tax provisions. Since the appellant had been allowed Central Excise notification benefits for decades, their activities constituted excise-covered operations rather than taxable services. The tribunal distinguished the case from Hema Engineering Industries Ltd., noting insufficient determination of whether appellant was processing intermediate products or manufacturing. The appeal was allowed, establishing that long-standing Central Excise treatment precludes service tax characterization. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448115