https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759903 CESTAT Allahabad held that CENVAT credit for input services used exclusively in manufacturing dutiable goods need not be included in total credit for apportionment between exempted services and dutiable goods. Only common input service credit requires apportionment. The tribunal relied on Rule 6(3A) amendment effective April 2016, clarified retrospectively by Board circular. Extended limitation period was rejected as no suppression occurred - appellant periodically informed department of credit reversal option selection. Since primary demand failed, penalty and interest were also set aside. Appeal allowed. en-us Wed, 09 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Oct 2024 08:58:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759903 CESTAT Allahabad held that CENVAT credit for input services used exclusively in manufacturing dutiable goods need not be included in total credit for apportionment between exempted services and dutiable goods. Only common input service credit requires apportionment. The tribunal relied on Rule 6(3A) amendment effective April 2016, clarified retrospectively by Board circular. Extended limitation period was rejected as no suppression occurred - appellant periodically informed department of credit reversal option selection. Since primary demand failed, penalty and interest were also set aside. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759903