https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268067 Penalty was sustained for wrongful utilisation of CENVAT credit against non-taxable output services, because the credit restrictions under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 were treated as mandatory and were breached on the facts. Maintenance of separate records did not cure the violation where the appellant still used input service credit beyond the permitted limits. The plea of bona fide belief and absence of mala fide was rejected, as the restriction was considered clear and the contravention sufficient to attract penal consequences. The order imposing penalty was therefore upheld and no relief was granted. en-us Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Nov 2015 17:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268067 Penalty was sustained for wrongful utilisation of CENVAT credit against non-taxable output services, because the credit restrictions under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 were treated as mandatory and were breached on the facts. Maintenance of separate records did not cure the violation where the appellant still used input service credit beyond the permitted limits. The plea of bona fide belief and absence of mala fide was rejected, as the restriction was considered clear and the contravention sufficient to attract penal consequences. The order imposing penalty was therefore upheld and no relief was granted. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268067