https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784262 The dominant issue was whether proportionate reversal of CENVAT credit on input naphtha used in manufacture of exempted goods satisfied Rule 6(3A) of the CCR, 2004 and entitled the assessee to the Finance Act, 2010 amendment benefit. Relying on prior CESTAT directions to verify reversal through a CA certificate and on SC authority that credit cannot be denied merely due to Rule 6 where statutory conditions are met, the Tribunal held that the assessee had paid the requisite proportionate amount attributable to exempted clearances. Consequently, the adjudicating order granting the amendment benefit was upheld and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. en-us Mon, 21 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Jan 2026 08:18:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784262 The dominant issue was whether proportionate reversal of CENVAT credit on input naphtha used in manufacture of exempted goods satisfied Rule 6(3A) of the CCR, 2004 and entitled the assessee to the Finance Act, 2010 amendment benefit. Relying on prior CESTAT directions to verify reversal through a CA certificate and on SC authority that credit cannot be denied merely due to Rule 6 where statutory conditions are met, the Tribunal held that the assessee had paid the requisite proportionate amount attributable to exempted clearances. Consequently, the adjudicating order granting the amendment benefit was upheld and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 21 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784262