JUDGMENT : S. Ravindra Bhat, J. D.B. Civil Misc. Application Nos. 2629/2018, 2621/2018 and 2623/2018: 1. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in filing the appeals is condoned. The applications are allowed. D.B. Excise Appeal Nos. 203/2018, 197/2018 and 199/2018: 2. The revenue is aggrieved by the order of CESTAT, which by its impugned decision, held that failure of the assessee/respondent to exercise option under Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - as amended later in the year 2011 - 2015, did not disentitle it to input credit which was otherwise admissible. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee manufactures auto parts which are excisable. It procured steel coils of various widths and sizes as inputs for use in the manufacture of their final product during the period from July, 2011 to March, 2016. In some cases, the quantity of inputs were either cleared as such or after undertaking the process of cutting/slitting on 14.11.2013, the assessee obtained registration as a dealer and thereafter, cleared the inputs on reversal of the credit under Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The trading was included as an exempted service w.e.f. 1.4.2011 or inputs cleared as such was done on reversal of proportionate credit of inputs services attributable to such trading activity as per Rule 6(3)(iii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The show cause notice was issued to the assessee alleging that the common input service credit was utilized for dutiable goods as well as the exempted service of trading and since he did not file a declaration under Rule 6(3A), he was liable to pay an amount of 7%/10% of the value of exempted goods sold in terms of Rule 6(3)(i). Ultimately, the show cause notice was issued and demand of ` 3,33,99,456/- was confirmed - this included the clearances of waste and scrap. The assessee filed appeal before the CESTAT. The CESTAT in its impugned order, after noticing the contentions of the parties, held as follows:- "8. The contention of the appellant is that such activities cannot be termed as trading since the unused inputs have been cleared as such or after slitting and as provided under Rule 3(5), the credit availed on such inputs already stand reversed. The CESTAT in its impugned order, after noticing the contentions of the parties, held as follows:- "8. The contention of the appellant is that such activities cannot be termed as trading since the unused inputs have been cleared as such or after slitting and as provided under Rule 3(5), the credit availed on such inputs already stand reversed. It is their argument that the value of the inputs cleared as such cannot be included for purposes of reversal as required under Rule 6(3)(i). Further, they have also argued that for clearance of inputs as such, there is no need for reversal of the credit availed on input service. Credit reversed already which should be accepted as sufficient since the exercise of option under Rule 6(3A) is only a procedural violation. 9. It is seen from the record that the appellant has taken out registration as a dealer w.e.f. 14.11.2013. After such date, the procurement of inputs and clearance of the same on reversal of cenvat credit is to be considered as an activity of trading and all consequences of specifying trading as an exempted service (w.e.f. 01.04.2011) will follow. It is seen that Rule 6(3)(i) has been amended w.e.f. 01.06.2015 providing for reversal of 7% of the value of exempted service. The period involved in the present case is from July, 2011 to March, 2016. The requirement of reversal of an amount under Rule 6(3)(i) including the value of exempted service i.e. trading will arise only after the date of such amendment. For the period prior to 01.04.2015, there is no requirement of reversal of credit @ 7% of exempted service. This position has been clarified by the CBEC vide their Circular dated 7.12.2015. Hence, we are of the view that for the period prior to 01.04.2015 there is no requirement under Rule 6(3)(i) for any reversal of credit of input services availed for clearance of inputs as such. It has been submitted that on the value of inputs cleared as such, the reversal on the value of goods as required under 3(5) has already been made. However, this aspect needs to be verified inasmuch as no details have been given on such reversal. It has been submitted that on the value of inputs cleared as such, the reversal on the value of goods as required under 3(5) has already been made. However, this aspect needs to be verified inasmuch as no details have been given on such reversal. In respect of reversal of credit of input services, for the period subsequent to 01.04.2015, it is the submission of the appellant that proportionate credit reversal for input services has already been made even though the requirement of exercising an option as required under Rule 6(3A) has not been done by the appellant. The failure to exercise option is only a procedural requirement and may be overlooked since proportionate reversal of input services has already been made.” 4. The revenue's main argument is that the decision of the CESTAT, even while remitting the matter for verification is erroneous, in as much as the assessee did not follow the procedure prescribed by Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It is urged that once the Rules directed the concerned party to avail of a benefit by following a particular procedure, in the absence of its mandate, the benefit could not be granted. 5. Learned counsel for the revenue relied upon the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal & Ors, (2011) 1 SCC 236 and the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd. 2009 (244) ELT 321 (Bom.). 6. At the outset, this Court notices that the CESTAT has finally remitted the matter for fresh verification in terms of its order. 7. In short, the revenue's argument is that Rule 6(3A) is not merely procedural but was binding upon the assessee, who could not have claimed the benefit of even proportionate credit or it would have otherwise been entitled to inputs service for which Cenvat Credit was admissible, without following the procedure. This Court is of the opinion that the CESTAT order cannot be faulted. 8. The show cause notice, in this case, covers two different periods - substantial part of that period was when Rule 6(3A) did not exist. During this time, adjudicating authorities were bound to follow the rule while granting inputs credit in respect of services that qualify for it, even while excluding the credit for non-eligible services and activities. 8. The show cause notice, in this case, covers two different periods - substantial part of that period was when Rule 6(3A) did not exist. During this time, adjudicating authorities were bound to follow the rule while granting inputs credit in respect of services that qualify for it, even while excluding the credit for non-eligible services and activities. All that Rule 6(3A) has done is to streamline the procedure for apportioning credits to ensure that proportionate credit, to the extent admissible could be claimed for the business and ensure that the concerned adjudicating officers do not have to spend time on carrying out the exercise. This amendment i.e. procedure for apportionment under sub-rule 3(A) was facilitative and procedural. The entitlement to credit otherwise is in Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. It is not disputed that Cenvat credit can be given in respect of services only when the inputs services qualify for that benefit and not for other inputs which are not eligible for the process of manufacture. 9. In view of the above discussion, no question of law arises and the appeals are accordingly dismissed. All pending applications are also dismissed.