https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775640 The CESTAT Hyderabad held that trading activity was considered an exempted service only from 01.04.2011 to 30.06.2012 as per the Notification, and prior to that, there was no clarity on this classification. Consequently, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked due to conflicting interpretations. The appellants were entitled to reverse proportionate CENVAT credit attributable to trading turnover under Rule 6(3)(ii) read with Rule 6(3A) of CCR, 2004, despite procedural lapses or delayed reversal. The matter was remanded to the Original Authority to compute the demand accordingly and determine interest liability, considering whether credit was utilized. The appeal was allowed by remand. en-us Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Jul 2025 08:30:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775640 The CESTAT Hyderabad held that trading activity was considered an exempted service only from 01.04.2011 to 30.06.2012 as per the Notification, and prior to that, there was no clarity on this classification. Consequently, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked due to conflicting interpretations. The appellants were entitled to reverse proportionate CENVAT credit attributable to trading turnover under Rule 6(3)(ii) read with Rule 6(3A) of CCR, 2004, despite procedural lapses or delayed reversal. The matter was remanded to the Original Authority to compute the demand accordingly and determine interest liability, considering whether credit was utilized. The appeal was allowed by remand. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775640