https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243650 The Court ruled in favor of the Petitioner, quashing the premature demands by the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax for reversal of CENVAT credit and payment of penalty. It found the demands to be in contradiction with the statutory appeal period provided under the Finance Act and Central Excise Act. The Court emphasized adherence to circulars by CBEC prohibiting coercive action before the appeal period expires, restraining Revenue authorities from taking coercive measures until the appeal period lapses, and allowing the Petitioner to file an appeal and stay application within the statutory timeframe without facing coercive actions. en-us Wed, 29 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Sep 2022 15:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243650 The Court ruled in favor of the Petitioner, quashing the premature demands by the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax for reversal of CENVAT credit and payment of penalty. It found the demands to be in contradiction with the statutory appeal period provided under the Finance Act and Central Excise Act. The Court emphasized adherence to circulars by CBEC prohibiting coercive action before the appeal period expires, restraining Revenue authorities from taking coercive measures until the appeal period lapses, and allowing the Petitioner to file an appeal and stay application within the statutory timeframe without facing coercive actions. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 29 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243650