https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769625 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, setting aside the adjudicating authority's order regarding CENVAT credit reversal under Rule 6 of CCR 2004. The appellant manufacturing company had separate registrations for units and maintained distinct records for dutiable goods versus exempted trading services. The court held that only common input services used at HO required proportionate reversal under Rule 6(3A), not the entire credit including inputs used exclusively for dutiable goods manufacturing. The adjudicating authority erred in calculating total credit reversal instead of applying the prescribed formula for apportionment of common services between dutiable and exempted activities. en-us Fri, 25 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Apr 2025 08:33:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769625 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, setting aside the adjudicating authority's order regarding CENVAT credit reversal under Rule 6 of CCR 2004. The appellant manufacturing company had separate registrations for units and maintained distinct records for dutiable goods versus exempted trading services. The court held that only common input services used at HO required proportionate reversal under Rule 6(3A), not the entire credit including inputs used exclusively for dutiable goods manufacturing. The adjudicating authority erred in calculating total credit reversal instead of applying the prescribed formula for apportionment of common services between dutiable and exempted activities. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 25 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769625