https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448182 CESTAT New Delhi held that the appellant could not claim abatement under notification 1/2006-ST for tower installation services as they had availed CENVAT credit on input services. The tribunal ruled that tower values need not be included in service value since sold separately. Demand under Rule 6(3) was set aside as services in J&K were not taxable. CENVAT credit on photocopies and amounts erroneously deposited was denied, but credit on invoices with address discrepancies was allowed. Extended limitation period and penalties under section 78 were set aside as no willful suppression was established. Appeal allowed in part. en-us Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Jan 2024 11:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448182 CESTAT New Delhi held that the appellant could not claim abatement under notification 1/2006-ST for tower installation services as they had availed CENVAT credit on input services. The tribunal ruled that tower values need not be included in service value since sold separately. Demand under Rule 6(3) was set aside as services in J&K were not taxable. CENVAT credit on photocopies and amounts erroneously deposited was denied, but credit on invoices with address discrepancies was allowed. Extended limitation period and penalties under section 78 were set aside as no willful suppression was established. Appeal allowed in part. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448182