https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763717 CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal challenging CENVAT credit demand under Rule 6(3) of CCR 2004. The tribunal found that the adjudicating authority failed to establish usage of common input services for both manufacturing dutiable goods and trading activities. Documents showed separate premises and accounts were maintained for trading activities. The show cause notice and impugned order lacked evidence demonstrating common service usage for taxable and exempted activities. Without establishing common usage, Rule 6 provisions could not be invoked. The demand and penalty were set aside due to absence of merit, making limitation period examination unnecessary. en-us Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Dec 2024 09:00:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763717 CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal challenging CENVAT credit demand under Rule 6(3) of CCR 2004. The tribunal found that the adjudicating authority failed to establish usage of common input services for both manufacturing dutiable goods and trading activities. Documents showed separate premises and accounts were maintained for trading activities. The show cause notice and impugned order lacked evidence demonstrating common service usage for taxable and exempted activities. Without establishing common usage, Rule 6 provisions could not be invoked. The demand and penalty were set aside due to absence of merit, making limitation period examination unnecessary. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763717