https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249502 The Tribunal remanded the case for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the importance of considering the appellant's request for Rule 9(2) benefit in disallowing CENVAT credit due to improper invoice addressing. It also found that the extended period for demand should not have been invoked, given regular audits and return filings, leading to a reassessment of the period involved. The decision highlighted the need to provide appellants a reasonable opportunity to present their case and ensure compliance with procedural fairness. en-us Wed, 07 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jul 2014 09:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249502 The Tribunal remanded the case for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the importance of considering the appellant's request for Rule 9(2) benefit in disallowing CENVAT credit due to improper invoice addressing. It also found that the extended period for demand should not have been invoked, given regular audits and return filings, leading to a reassessment of the period involved. The decision highlighted the need to provide appellants a reasonable opportunity to present their case and ensure compliance with procedural fairness. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 07 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249502