Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for service tax of Rs.4.67 crores on mining activities, holding such activities fall under the negative list and are not liable to service tax. The Tribunal also rejected the demand for recovery of irregularly availed Cenvat credit of over Rs.10.20 crores, noting that the invoices relied upon were invalid documents under the CCR, 2004, and that the appellant's director admitted non-payment of service tax by the sub-contractor. However, the extended period of limitation for credit denial was held unjustified, as no fraud or willful suppression was established, and the department relied solely on appellant-produced documents without independent investigation. Consequently, the penalty under section 78 was also set aside. The entire demand, both on merit and limitation grounds, was quashed, resulting in the appeal's allowance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.