https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788689 CENVAT credit on specified input services was held admissible under Rule 6(5) because its non-obstante clause prevailed over the general restrictions in Rule 6(1), 6(2) and 6(3), and the record did not show exclusive use of those services for exempted goods or services. A retrospective amendment under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010 was treated as applicable to pending disputes on common inputs and input services, permitting proportionate reversal for the relevant past period; the assessee's reversal with interest could therefore not be ignored to sustain demand or penal consequences. en-us Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Mar 2026 08:52:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788689 CENVAT credit on specified input services was held admissible under Rule 6(5) because its non-obstante clause prevailed over the general restrictions in Rule 6(1), 6(2) and 6(3), and the record did not show exclusive use of those services for exempted goods or services. A retrospective amendment under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010 was treated as applicable to pending disputes on common inputs and input services, permitting proportionate reversal for the relevant past period; the assessee's reversal with interest could therefore not be ignored to sustain demand or penal consequences. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788689