https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371824 The CESTAT upheld the recovery of inadmissible credit for exempted services in the case involving a general insurance company. The appellants contended that Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules should not apply as input services were not wholly used for exempted services. The authorities were directed to re-examine the excess reversal of CENVAT credit, eligibility for credit on input services, and invokability of the extended period. The penalty under Section 78 was dropped, but the case was remanded to assess the invokability of the extended period for intentional suppression of facts. en-us Thu, 22 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Dec 2018 13:33:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371824 The CESTAT upheld the recovery of inadmissible credit for exempted services in the case involving a general insurance company. The appellants contended that Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules should not apply as input services were not wholly used for exempted services. The authorities were directed to re-examine the excess reversal of CENVAT credit, eligibility for credit on input services, and invokability of the extended period. The penalty under Section 78 was dropped, but the case was remanded to assess the invokability of the extended period for intentional suppression of facts. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 22 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371824