https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341773 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the demand for availing irregular credit on common input services used for both manufacturing and trading activities was unjustified. It was determined that the trading activity being considered an exempted service was unclear before 01.04.2011, and therefore, the demand raised invoking the extended limitation period was not valid. The tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence of suppression of facts by the appellants and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential reliefs. en-us Thu, 30 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:52:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341773 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the demand for availing irregular credit on common input services used for both manufacturing and trading activities was unjustified. It was determined that the trading activity being considered an exempted service was unclear before 01.04.2011, and therefore, the demand raised invoking the extended limitation period was not valid. The tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence of suppression of facts by the appellants and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential reliefs. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341773