https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775191 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal regarding reversal of Cenvat credit on common input services under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules. The Tribunal held that trading constitutes exempted service only from 01.04.2011 as clarified by Notification No.03/2011-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2011, therefore no credit reversal was required for the pre-2011 period. The Tribunal found the extended limitation period was improperly invoked as the Revenue failed to establish fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement by the appellant, who was a regular duty-paying assessee subject to routine audits. The Tribunal ruled that extended period cannot be invoked when detection results from audit proceedings without evidence of mala fide intent. Since the appellant had already deposited the applicable CENVAT credit from 01.04.2011 onwards, the demand failed on both merits and limitation grounds. en-us Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Jul 2025 08:25:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775191 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal regarding reversal of Cenvat credit on common input services under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules. The Tribunal held that trading constitutes exempted service only from 01.04.2011 as clarified by Notification No.03/2011-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2011, therefore no credit reversal was required for the pre-2011 period. The Tribunal found the extended limitation period was improperly invoked as the Revenue failed to establish fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement by the appellant, who was a regular duty-paying assessee subject to routine audits. The Tribunal ruled that extended period cannot be invoked when detection results from audit proceedings without evidence of mala fide intent. Since the appellant had already deposited the applicable CENVAT credit from 01.04.2011 onwards, the demand failed on both merits and limitation grounds. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775191