https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781806 CESTAT set aside the demand and allowed the appeal. For 2006-07 and 2007-08, it held that once audit had directed payment of excess CENVAT credit above 20% and the appellant paid along with interest before issue of SCN, Revenue could not subsequently demand 8%/6% of exempted turnover for the same period. For the later period, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's reversal of proportionate CENVAT credit with interest and applied the 2014 amendment allowing condonation of delay in exercising the Rule 6(3A) option retrospectively. Relying on HC precedent, it held Revenue could not impose the 5%/6% option on the appellant. en-us Tue, 11 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Nov 2025 08:42:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781806 CESTAT set aside the demand and allowed the appeal. For 2006-07 and 2007-08, it held that once audit had directed payment of excess CENVAT credit above 20% and the appellant paid along with interest before issue of SCN, Revenue could not subsequently demand 8%/6% of exempted turnover for the same period. For the later period, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's reversal of proportionate CENVAT credit with interest and applied the 2014 amendment allowing condonation of delay in exercising the Rule 6(3A) option retrospectively. Relying on HC precedent, it held Revenue could not impose the 5%/6% option on the appellant. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 11 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781806