https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757864 CESTAT Chennai held that the appellant's wrongful availment of common credit on input services for trading and manufacturing from December 2008 to September 2013 was partially valid. The tribunal found that the appellant had properly reversed proportionate credit from April 1, 2011 onwards per Rule 6(3A)(b) of CCR 2004. The department failed to establish that credit was availed exclusively for trading activities, making the confirmation of entire common input credit baseless. On time limitation, the tribunal ruled that trading as exempted service was interpretational prior to April 2011, with no suppression of facts or intent to evade duty. Extended period demands were set aside as time-barred, with appellant liable only for normal period reversals. Appeal allowed in part. en-us Tue, 27 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Sep 2024 08:17:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757864 CESTAT Chennai held that the appellant's wrongful availment of common credit on input services for trading and manufacturing from December 2008 to September 2013 was partially valid. The tribunal found that the appellant had properly reversed proportionate credit from April 1, 2011 onwards per Rule 6(3A)(b) of CCR 2004. The department failed to establish that credit was availed exclusively for trading activities, making the confirmation of entire common input credit baseless. On time limitation, the tribunal ruled that trading as exempted service was interpretational prior to April 2011, with no suppression of facts or intent to evade duty. Extended period demands were set aside as time-barred, with appellant liable only for normal period reversals. Appeal allowed in part. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 27 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757864