https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=87544 CESTAT allowed the appeal, finding that: (1) proportionate CENVAT credit reversal sufficiently complied with Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; (2) CA certificates validly established no credit was availed on common input services from October 2012 to March 2015; (3) original invoice submission to Range Office was acceptable; and (4) extended limitation period was improperly invoked given comprehensive prior audits and regular return filings. The tribunal set aside the demand for 5%/6% of exempted services value, effectively ruling in favor of the appellant by rejecting the department's claims and procedural challenges. en-us Fri, 18 Apr 2025 08:38:17 +0530 Fri, 18 Apr 2025 08:38:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=87544 CESTAT allowed the appeal, finding that: (1) proportionate CENVAT credit reversal sufficiently complied with Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; (2) CA certificates validly established no credit was availed on common input services from October 2012 to March 2015; (3) original invoice submission to Range Office was acceptable; and (4) extended limitation period was improperly invoked given comprehensive prior audits and regular return filings. The tribunal set aside the demand for 5%/6% of exempted services value, effectively ruling in favor of the appellant by rejecting the department's claims and procedural challenges. Highlights Service Tax Fri, 18 Apr 2025 08:38:17 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=87544