https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377073 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision that the appellants violated Rule 7(c) of CCR, 2004 by improperly distributing credit on input services related to dealer premises and unregistered godown, which were not eligible for credit under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. The appellants' argument that the demand was time-barred was rejected, as activities were not properly intimated to the Department. The reduced penalty was considered appropriate, and the Tribunal dismissed both appeals, affirming the original order. en-us Tue, 19 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Mar 2019 07:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377073 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision that the appellants violated Rule 7(c) of CCR, 2004 by improperly distributing credit on input services related to dealer premises and unregistered godown, which were not eligible for credit under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. The appellants' argument that the demand was time-barred was rejected, as activities were not properly intimated to the Department. The reduced penalty was considered appropriate, and the Tribunal dismissed both appeals, affirming the original order. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377073