https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438722 The appellant was found to have wrongly availed Cenvat credit on ineligible input services but successfully argued that the services were eligible for business purposes. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that there was no willful suppression of facts and the extended period was wrongly invoked. The penalty imposed was set aside as unjustified due to the lack of malafide intention or suppression of facts. The judgment emphasizes the importance of correctly availing Cenvat credit and the criteria for invoking the extended period under the Central Excise Act, 1944. en-us Mon, 05 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jun 2023 01:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438722 The appellant was found to have wrongly availed Cenvat credit on ineligible input services but successfully argued that the services were eligible for business purposes. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that there was no willful suppression of facts and the extended period was wrongly invoked. The penalty imposed was set aside as unjustified due to the lack of malafide intention or suppression of facts. The judgment emphasizes the importance of correctly availing Cenvat credit and the criteria for invoking the extended period under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438722