https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361920 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the demand for recovery of Cenvat Credit beyond the normal period of limitation was barred due to the unsettled nature of the issue regarding the admissibility of tower and tower materials for telecommunication services. Despite conflicting decisions and the Larger Bench ruling against the appellant, the Tribunal found no malafide on the appellant's part before the declaration of law. The impugned order was set aside based on the limitation bar, emphasizing the uncertainty surrounding the issue during the relevant period. en-us Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Jun 2018 15:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361920 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the demand for recovery of Cenvat Credit beyond the normal period of limitation was barred due to the unsettled nature of the issue regarding the admissibility of tower and tower materials for telecommunication services. Despite conflicting decisions and the Larger Bench ruling against the appellant, the Tribunal found no malafide on the appellant's part before the declaration of law. The impugned order was set aside based on the limitation bar, emphasizing the uncertainty surrounding the issue during the relevant period. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361920