https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352828 The appellant, a service provider, challenged the rejection of their appeal by the Commissioner (A) regarding a demand for irregular CENVAT credit availment. The lower authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties. The appellant argued that the impugned order did not consider the factual and legal position adequately, citing the use of allegedly ineligible services for business purposes. Relying on precedents, the appellant contended that the services in question fell within the definition of input service. The judicial member found the impugned order unsustainable, allowing the appellant's appeal and setting aside the previous order on 15/11/2017. en-us Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:09:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352828 The appellant, a service provider, challenged the rejection of their appeal by the Commissioner (A) regarding a demand for irregular CENVAT credit availment. The lower authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties. The appellant argued that the impugned order did not consider the factual and legal position adequately, citing the use of allegedly ineligible services for business purposes. Relying on precedents, the appellant contended that the services in question fell within the definition of input service. The judicial member found the impugned order unsustainable, allowing the appellant's appeal and setting aside the previous order on 15/11/2017. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352828