https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33135 The Tribunal determined that the services provided were classified as "exempted services" under Rule 2(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It held that the 20% utilization limit under Rule 6(3)(c) did not apply to capital goods credit and certain specified services. The excess utilized credit was to be calculated without the inclusion of these credits. The Tribunal found that the extended limitation period and penalties were wrongly invoked, as the appellant had disclosed all relevant details, and the demand was beyond the normal limitation period. The case was remanded for further adjudication without imposing any penalties. en-us Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Apr 2014 18:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33135 The Tribunal determined that the services provided were classified as "exempted services" under Rule 2(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It held that the 20% utilization limit under Rule 6(3)(c) did not apply to capital goods credit and certain specified services. The excess utilized credit was to be calculated without the inclusion of these credits. The Tribunal found that the extended limitation period and penalties were wrongly invoked, as the appellant had disclosed all relevant details, and the demand was beyond the normal limitation period. The case was remanded for further adjudication without imposing any penalties. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33135