https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221516 The Tribunal upheld the original decision, emphasizing Rule 9(1)(f)'s clear provision on the timeline for claiming Cenvat credit. The application for rectification, based on conflicting views from different benches and seeking a re-evaluation of facts related to suppression, was rejected as beyond the scope of rectifiable mistakes. The Tribunal clarified that credit before 10-9-2004 for service tax on input services used in manufacturing excisable goods was restricted under Rule 9(1)(f), affirming the demand for recovery of credit taken before the specified date. en-us Fri, 26 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221516 The Tribunal upheld the original decision, emphasizing Rule 9(1)(f)'s clear provision on the timeline for claiming Cenvat credit. The application for rectification, based on conflicting views from different benches and seeking a re-evaluation of facts related to suppression, was rejected as beyond the scope of rectifiable mistakes. The Tribunal clarified that credit before 10-9-2004 for service tax on input services used in manufacturing excisable goods was restricted under Rule 9(1)(f), affirming the demand for recovery of credit taken before the specified date. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 26 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221516