https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374967 CESTAT Mumbai held that mere availment of CENVAT credit on exempted services without separate records did not, by itself, establish suppression of facts where the omission was disclosed in returns and the demand arose from an audit objection. The entries marked "NO" and "zero" were treated as reflecting a mistaken understanding of the CENVAT Credit Rules, not deliberate intent to evade duty. In the absence of evidence of wilful suppression, invocation of the extended limitation period failed and penalty was not sustainable. en-us Thu, 07 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Aug 2026 12:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374967 CESTAT Mumbai held that mere availment of CENVAT credit on exempted services without separate records did not, by itself, establish suppression of facts where the omission was disclosed in returns and the demand arose from an audit objection. The entries marked "NO" and "zero" were treated as reflecting a mistaken understanding of the CENVAT Credit Rules, not deliberate intent to evade duty. In the absence of evidence of wilful suppression, invocation of the extended limitation period failed and penalty was not sustainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 07 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374967