https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438346 The appellant, M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., challenged the demand for utilizing CENVAT Credit exceeding the 20% limit under Rule 6(3)(c) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the 20% ceiling did not apply to capital goods and specified input services. The demand was deemed unjustified, and the extended period of limitation could not be invoked without evidence of suppression. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order was set aside. en-us Fri, 26 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 May 2023 08:59:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438346 The appellant, M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., challenged the demand for utilizing CENVAT Credit exceeding the 20% limit under Rule 6(3)(c) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the 20% ceiling did not apply to capital goods and specified input services. The demand was deemed unjustified, and the extended period of limitation could not be invoked without evidence of suppression. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order was set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 26 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438346