https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363460 The article explains that, after the 2011 amendment to Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, rent-a-cab service used to transport employees to a manufacturing facility was specifically excluded from the definition of input service, so Cenvat credit on that service was not admissible for the covered period. It also notes that, where the dispute turns on interpretation of the credit provisions and mens rea is absent, penalties under the Cenvat Credit Rules are not warranted; the penalty under Rule 25 was not upheld and the penalty under Rule 15 was also found unjustified. The credit denial was sustained, while relief was granted on the penalty aspect. en-us Wed, 23 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jul 2018 06:12:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363460 The article explains that, after the 2011 amendment to Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, rent-a-cab service used to transport employees to a manufacturing facility was specifically excluded from the definition of input service, so Cenvat credit on that service was not admissible for the covered period. It also notes that, where the dispute turns on interpretation of the credit provisions and mens rea is absent, penalties under the Cenvat Credit Rules are not warranted; the penalty under Rule 25 was not upheld and the penalty under Rule 15 was also found unjustified. The credit denial was sustained, while relief was granted on the penalty aspect. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363460