https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449865 CESTAT Mumbai held that deletion of rule 6(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 from 31st March 2011 could not retrospectively impact credit validly availed under rule 3 before that date. The tribunal ruled that erasure of rule 6(5) only withdrew the privilege of exclusion from general provisions but did not affect credit already taken for inputs/input services consumed before the amendment. Following SC precedents in Eicher Motors, Samtel India, and Dai Ichi Karkaria, the tribunal recognized vested rights in legitimately availed credit. The appeal was allowed as continued eligibility for pre-amendment credit cannot be curtailed retrospectively. en-us Tue, 20 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Feb 2024 08:19:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449865 CESTAT Mumbai held that deletion of rule 6(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 from 31st March 2011 could not retrospectively impact credit validly availed under rule 3 before that date. The tribunal ruled that erasure of rule 6(5) only withdrew the privilege of exclusion from general provisions but did not affect credit already taken for inputs/input services consumed before the amendment. Following SC precedents in Eicher Motors, Samtel India, and Dai Ichi Karkaria, the tribunal recognized vested rights in legitimately availed credit. The appeal was allowed as continued eligibility for pre-amendment credit cannot be curtailed retrospectively. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449865