https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313617 The CESTAT Mumbai held that removal of inputs (electricity) by the appellant cannot be considered trading in goods and should be dealt under Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, not Rule 6. The tribunal found the demand under Rule 6(3)(i) erroneous and ruled that procedural irregularities like non-filing of prior declaration should not disallow the substantial benefit of proportionate reversal. The matter was remanded to the original authority to re-determine the amounts to be reversed on electricity wheeled out to MSEDCL using the prescribed formula under Rule 6(3)(ii) read with Rule 6(3A). en-us Thu, 02 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Apr 2024 06:30:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313617 The CESTAT Mumbai held that removal of inputs (electricity) by the appellant cannot be considered trading in goods and should be dealt under Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, not Rule 6. The tribunal found the demand under Rule 6(3)(i) erroneous and ruled that procedural irregularities like non-filing of prior declaration should not disallow the substantial benefit of proportionate reversal. The matter was remanded to the original authority to re-determine the amounts to be reversed on electricity wheeled out to MSEDCL using the prescribed formula under Rule 6(3)(ii) read with Rule 6(3A). Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313617