https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759902 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal and set aside the demand. The revenue had raised a CENVAT credit demand equal to 6% of the difference between purchase and sale price of trading goods under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However, the appellant had already reversed the proportionate credit and paid interest for the delayed period. The tribunal held that after such reversal with interest, the 6% demand under Rule 6(3) cannot be sustained, citing precedents from PI Industries and Alstom India Limited cases where similar demands on traded goods were held unsustainable. 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=759902 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal and set aside the demand. The revenue had raised a CENVAT credit demand equal to 6% of the difference between purchase and sale price of trading goods under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However, the appellant had already reversed the proportionate credit and paid interest for the delayed period. The tribunal held that after such reversal with interest, the 6% demand under Rule 6(3) cannot be sustained, citing precedents from PI Industries and Alstom India Limited cases where similar demands on traded goods were held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759902