https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790810 In an indivisible BOOT works contract, billing for goods used in execution is treated as part of the works contract and not as separate trading or an exempted service. The deemed sale element of goods in such a contract cannot be recharacterised as exempt service for Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Where the record also shows separate accounting of activities and no established wrongful availment of common input service credit, the basis for reversal under Rule 6(3) and Rule 6(3A) does not arise. Consequently, demand, interest and penalties founded on Rule 6 cannot be sustained. en-us Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 May 2026 10:14:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790810 In an indivisible BOOT works contract, billing for goods used in execution is treated as part of the works contract and not as separate trading or an exempted service. The deemed sale element of goods in such a contract cannot be recharacterised as exempt service for Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Where the record also shows separate accounting of activities and no established wrongful availment of common input service credit, the basis for reversal under Rule 6(3) and Rule 6(3A) does not arise. Consequently, demand, interest and penalties founded on Rule 6 cannot be sustained. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790810