https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352917 Cenvat credit on clearing and forwarding agent service could not be conclusively allowed or denied because the factual question whether the service involved sales promotion, which falls within the inclusive definition of input service, had not been verified. The credit dispute was therefore remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh factual examination. Penalty under Rule 15(1) was held unsustainable because credit had been taken under a bona fide belief, and no mala fide intent, suppression, or other material justifying penalty was shown. The penalty was accordingly set aside while the credit issue was sent back for reconsideration on facts. en-us Fri, 03 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Dec 2017 08:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352917 Cenvat credit on clearing and forwarding agent service could not be conclusively allowed or denied because the factual question whether the service involved sales promotion, which falls within the inclusive definition of input service, had not been verified. The credit dispute was therefore remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh factual examination. Penalty under Rule 15(1) was held unsustainable because credit had been taken under a bona fide belief, and no mala fide intent, suppression, or other material justifying penalty was shown. The penalty was accordingly set aside while the credit issue was sent back for reconsideration on facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352917