https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367780 A later-introduced time limit for availing Cenvat credit was treated as prospective and could not be applied to invoices and credits relating to the earlier period, so the credit disallowance was unsustainable. A differential service tax demand based on alleged shortfall in gross receipts was also set aside because the discrepancy was shown to arise from a clerical error in the accounts and was supported by the books and contemporaneous records. Once the principal demand failed, the foundation for alleging suppression and default disappeared, so the penalties under Sections 77 and 78 and Rule 15(3) were deleted, with only the reduced late fee under Section 70 read with Rule 7C remaining. en-us Tue, 18 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Aug 2019 18:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367780 A later-introduced time limit for availing Cenvat credit was treated as prospective and could not be applied to invoices and credits relating to the earlier period, so the credit disallowance was unsustainable. A differential service tax demand based on alleged shortfall in gross receipts was also set aside because the discrepancy was shown to arise from a clerical error in the accounts and was supported by the books and contemporaneous records. Once the principal demand failed, the foundation for alleging suppression and default disappeared, so the penalties under Sections 77 and 78 and Rule 15(3) were deleted, with only the reduced late fee under Section 70 read with Rule 7C remaining. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 18 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367780