https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762949 Reversal of common Cenvat credit attributable to exempted activity, together with interest, was treated as sufficient substantive compliance under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, even though separate accounts were not maintained and the department was not intimated in the prescribed manner. The procedural lapse was not allowed to defeat proportionate reversal where the credit had already been paid back, because Rule 6 was viewed as preventing wrongful retention of credit and not as a basis for recovering more than the amount actually attributable to exempted services. On that footing, the related demand and penalty were held unsustainable. en-us Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Dec 2024 08:15:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762949 Reversal of common Cenvat credit attributable to exempted activity, together with interest, was treated as sufficient substantive compliance under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, even though separate accounts were not maintained and the department was not intimated in the prescribed manner. The procedural lapse was not allowed to defeat proportionate reversal where the credit had already been paid back, because Rule 6 was viewed as preventing wrongful retention of credit and not as a basis for recovering more than the amount actually attributable to exempted services. On that footing, the related demand and penalty were held unsustainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762949