https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252639 Credible contemporaneous records, including Chartered Accountant certification and return data, supported the appellant's computation that CENVAT credit utilisation did not exceed the prescribed limit, so the demand on that count did not survive. On the treatment of disputed input services as common input services under Rule 6(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant established coverage for a substantial portion of invoices but not for all remaining invoices, so relief was only partial. The controversy was treated largely as one of classification and verification rather than deliberate suppression, which confined the surviving demand to the normal period and limited the interest accordingly. en-us Tue, 27 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252639 Credible contemporaneous records, including Chartered Accountant certification and return data, supported the appellant's computation that CENVAT credit utilisation did not exceed the prescribed limit, so the demand on that count did not survive. On the treatment of disputed input services as common input services under Rule 6(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant established coverage for a substantial portion of invoices but not for all remaining invoices, so relief was only partial. The controversy was treated largely as one of classification and verification rather than deliberate suppression, which confined the surviving demand to the normal period and limited the interest accordingly. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 27 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252639