https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442016 Extended limitation under s.73, Finance Act, 1994 was invoked for alleged inadmissible CENVAT credit on inputs/input services used for non-taxable services. The Tribunal held that fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression requires mens rea; mere disagreement on credit eligibility, payment of tax/interest after audit, or non-disclosure beyond ST-3 returns cannot establish intent, particularly when scrutiny and best-judgment assessment under s.72 rests with the proper officer. Consequently, the extended period was unavailable and the demand beyond the normal period was time-barred; merits were not examined. The impugned order was set aside except for denial and recovery of CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,45,724 on architectural services for 2011-12 with interest; appeal partly allowed. en-us Mon, 21 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jan 2026 14:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442016 Extended limitation under s.73, Finance Act, 1994 was invoked for alleged inadmissible CENVAT credit on inputs/input services used for non-taxable services. The Tribunal held that fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression requires mens rea; mere disagreement on credit eligibility, payment of tax/interest after audit, or non-disclosure beyond ST-3 returns cannot establish intent, particularly when scrutiny and best-judgment assessment under s.72 rests with the proper officer. Consequently, the extended period was unavailable and the demand beyond the normal period was time-barred; merits were not examined. The impugned order was set aside except for denial and recovery of CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,45,724 on architectural services for 2011-12 with interest; appeal partly allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 21 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442016