https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336877 The tribunal found that the appellant was eligible for Cenvat Credit on 'Input Services' used in the residential colony but acknowledged inadmissibility based on a court judgment. The demand for the period prior to April 2011 was held not sustainable due to no suppression of facts. The penalty imposed under Rule 15(2) of CCR, 2004 was deemed unsustainable as there was no suppression of facts. The appeal was partly allowed, confirming duty and interest for the period April 2011 to August 2011. en-us Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Dec 2016 14:59:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336877 The tribunal found that the appellant was eligible for Cenvat Credit on 'Input Services' used in the residential colony but acknowledged inadmissibility based on a court judgment. The demand for the period prior to April 2011 was held not sustainable due to no suppression of facts. The penalty imposed under Rule 15(2) of CCR, 2004 was deemed unsustainable as there was no suppression of facts. The appeal was partly allowed, confirming duty and interest for the period April 2011 to August 2011. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336877