https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258693 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on both issues. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal found that enforcing a large amount due to a minor procedural lapse would be harsh, as mens rea to evade duty was not established. The demand and penalty were set aside. Concerning the second issue, the Tribunal held that the CENVAT credit on insurance, repair, and maintenance of motor vehicles was admissible, setting aside the penalty. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, overturning the impugned order. en-us Wed, 14 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jul 2015 17:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258693 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on both issues. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal found that enforcing a large amount due to a minor procedural lapse would be harsh, as mens rea to evade duty was not established. The demand and penalty were set aside. Concerning the second issue, the Tribunal held that the CENVAT credit on insurance, repair, and maintenance of motor vehicles was admissible, setting aside the penalty. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, overturning the impugned order. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 14 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258693