https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792170 Proportionate reversal of CENVAT credit attributable to electricity wheeled out to sister concerns was treated as equivalent to non-availment of that credit, so the demand raised under Rule 6 on that basis could not survive. The Tribunal followed the settled position in Chandrapur Magnets and Precot Meridian, and its earlier orders in the same assessee's case, and rejected the Revenue's distinction based on recovery provisions and Rule 14 because it did not alter the substantive legal effect of the reversal. The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed. en-us Fri, 22 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 May 2026 08:14:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792170 Proportionate reversal of CENVAT credit attributable to electricity wheeled out to sister concerns was treated as equivalent to non-availment of that credit, so the demand raised under Rule 6 on that basis could not survive. The Tribunal followed the settled position in Chandrapur Magnets and Precot Meridian, and its earlier orders in the same assessee's case, and rejected the Revenue's distinction based on recovery provisions and Rule 14 because it did not alter the substantive legal effect of the reversal. The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792170