https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355811 After the 1 April 2011 amendment to Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, construction services used to set up a windmill away from the factory did not qualify as input services, so the Cenvat credit was inadmissible. Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was not sustainable where the credit had been reversed with interest, the notice was within the normal limitation period, and no suppression or misdeclaration was shown. The demand was upheld and the penalty was deleted. en-us Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Mar 2019 15:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355811 After the 1 April 2011 amendment to Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, construction services used to set up a windmill away from the factory did not qualify as input services, so the Cenvat credit was inadmissible. Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was not sustainable where the credit had been reversed with interest, the notice was within the normal limitation period, and no suppression or misdeclaration was shown. The demand was upheld and the penalty was deleted. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355811