https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782072 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appellant's appeal, holding that CENVAT credit on common input services used for manufacturing batteries and for PPCP cleared as such could not be denied under Rule 6(3)(i) of the CCR, 2004. The Tribunal noted that PPCP was an eligible input, used in manufacture, and that the appellant had already reversed credit under Rule 3(5) when clearing PPCP to molders. Finding no requirement in the CCR for further reversal on input services in such circumstances, CESTAT set aside the demand, interest, and penalties. en-us Wed, 19 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Nov 2025 08:55:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782072 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appellant's appeal, holding that CENVAT credit on common input services used for manufacturing batteries and for PPCP cleared as such could not be denied under Rule 6(3)(i) of the CCR, 2004. The Tribunal noted that PPCP was an eligible input, used in manufacture, and that the appellant had already reversed credit under Rule 3(5) when clearing PPCP to molders. Finding no requirement in the CCR for further reversal on input services in such circumstances, CESTAT set aside the demand, interest, and penalties. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782072