https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144098 The appellant contested the denial of abatement under Notification No. 1/06 for construction services, emphasizing eligibility for separate abatement for different services. The Assistant Commissioner alleged availing Cenvat credit and abatement simultaneously, leading to a demand for differential duty. However, the appellant clarified no credit was availed for one service, challenging the denial based on credit for another service. The judgment favored the appellant, setting aside penalties and interest imposed, absolving them of disputed liabilities under sections 75 and 76 of the Act. en-us Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:05:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144098 The appellant contested the denial of abatement under Notification No. 1/06 for construction services, emphasizing eligibility for separate abatement for different services. The Assistant Commissioner alleged availing Cenvat credit and abatement simultaneously, leading to a demand for differential duty. However, the appellant clarified no credit was availed for one service, challenging the denial based on credit for another service. The judgment favored the appellant, setting aside penalties and interest imposed, absolving them of disputed liabilities under sections 75 and 76 of the Act. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144098