TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether CENVAT credit on erection and commissioning services, management consultant services, manpower supply services, and mediclaim or accidental insurance policy for employees was admissible; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked; and (iii) whether interest and penalty were sustainable.
Issue (i): whether CENVAT credit on erection and commissioning services, management consultant services, manpower supply services, and mediclaim or accidental insurance policy for employees was admissible.
Analysis: The services were examined in the context of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The dispute concerned whether the impugned services had the required nexus with the assessee's business and whether they fell within the inclusive ambit of input service. The record showed that the services were claimed to have been used in the assessee's business operations, including output service activity, business planning, manpower deployment, and employee welfare. The credit denial was therefore unsustainable on the facts presented.
Conclusion: CENVAT credit on the impugned services was held admissible, in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked.
Analysis: The notice proceeded on allegations of suppression and wilful contravention, but no specific factual basis was shown to establish deliberate suppression. The credit availment had been disclosed in periodic returns and was already within the Department's knowledge through the audit note prior to issuance of the show cause notice. In such circumstances, the demand could not be sustained by invoking the extended period.
Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was held unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iii): whether interest and penalty were sustainable.
Analysis: Interest and penalty were consequential to the disputed demand. Once the demand itself failed on merits and on limitation, the foundation for interest and penalty also disappeared. No deliberate defiance of law was established.
Conclusion: Interest and penalty were held unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief under the applicable law.
Ratio Decidendi: CENVAT credit cannot be denied where the impugned services qualify as input services in relation to business, and the extended period of limitation is unavailable in the absence of specific suppression supported by facts already within departmental knowledge.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
