https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335682 The Tribunal set aside the order upholding the demand, interest, and penalty on irregular availment of CENVAT credit for engineering consulting services. It was found that the appellant acted under a bona fide belief of credit admissibility, with no suppression, fraud, or willful misstatement. The error was deemed a procedural lapse, not intentional evasion. Previous rulings favored the appellant's credit eligibility, and any discrepancies were related to credit utilization, ensuring revenue neutrality. The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence of suppression, fraud, or misrepresentation, allowing the appeal and granting any consequential reliefs. en-us Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335682 The Tribunal set aside the order upholding the demand, interest, and penalty on irregular availment of CENVAT credit for engineering consulting services. It was found that the appellant acted under a bona fide belief of credit admissibility, with no suppression, fraud, or willful misstatement. The error was deemed a procedural lapse, not intentional evasion. Previous rulings favored the appellant's credit eligibility, and any discrepancies were related to credit utilization, ensuring revenue neutrality. The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence of suppression, fraud, or misrepresentation, allowing the appeal and granting any consequential reliefs. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335682