Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
CESTAT allowed the appeal, finding that: (1) proportionate CENVAT credit reversal sufficiently complied with Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; (2) CA certificates validly established no credit was availed on common input services from October 2012 to March 2015; (3) original invoice submission to Range Office was acceptable; and (4) extended limitation period was improperly invoked given comprehensive prior audits and regular return filings. The tribunal set aside the demand for 5%/6% of exempted services value, effectively ruling in favor of the appellant by rejecting the department's claims and procedural challenges.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, finding that: (1) proportionate CENVAT credit reversal sufficiently complied with Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; (2) CA certificates validly established no credit was availed on common input services from October 2012 to March 2015; (3) original invoice submission to Range Office was acceptable; and (4) extended limitation period was improperly invoked given comprehensive prior audits and regular return filings. The tribunal set aside the demand for 5%/6% of exempted services value, effectively ruling in favor of the appellant by rejecting the department's claims and procedural challenges.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
