https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768842 CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit reversal demand for trading activities. The adjudication authority had rejected appellant's proportionate credit calculation under Rule 6(3A) for security services without specifying any mistake or omission. The tribunal held that reversal of proportionate credit on common security services was required only from April 2011 when Rule 6(5) was omitted. Since appellant had fully reversed credit for courier and telephone services and proportionately for security services as per Rule 6(3A), the demand was unsustainable. Extended limitation period invocation was also rejected as appellant demonstrated compliance with credit reversal requirements. en-us Tue, 28 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Apr 2025 08:35:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768842 CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit reversal demand for trading activities. The adjudication authority had rejected appellant's proportionate credit calculation under Rule 6(3A) for security services without specifying any mistake or omission. The tribunal held that reversal of proportionate credit on common security services was required only from April 2011 when Rule 6(5) was omitted. Since appellant had fully reversed credit for courier and telephone services and proportionately for security services as per Rule 6(3A), the demand was unsustainable. Extended limitation period invocation was also rejected as appellant demonstrated compliance with credit reversal requirements. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768842