https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187960 The case involved a dispute over the denial of cenvat credit on various input services. The appellant argued that the services were used for business purposes and should qualify as input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Revenue contended that certain charges were not eligible for credit. After considering both arguments, the court found that the Department's proceedings for cenvat credit recovery were time-barred. The court noted the absence of evidence of suppression or misstatement by the assessee, leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellant based on the limitation period. en-us Mon, 25 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Aug 2017 17:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187960 The case involved a dispute over the denial of cenvat credit on various input services. The appellant argued that the services were used for business purposes and should qualify as input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Revenue contended that certain charges were not eligible for credit. After considering both arguments, the court found that the Department's proceedings for cenvat credit recovery were time-barred. The court noted the absence of evidence of suppression or misstatement by the assessee, leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellant based on the limitation period. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187960