https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448184 Dispute concerns (1) CENVAT credit admissibility where documents issued by an Input Service Distributor did not strictly conform to Rule 9(1)(g) CENVAT Credit Rules and Rule 4A(2) Service Tax Rules, and (2) validity of invoking the extended limitation period. The legal outcome: the Tribunal held that procedural document defects alone do not defeat substantive entitlement to CENVAT credit where the availment and admissibility of services are undisputed, and that the extended period cannot be invoked absent evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression; the demand and penalty were set aside as time-barred. en-us Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Feb 2026 10:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448184 Dispute concerns (1) CENVAT credit admissibility where documents issued by an Input Service Distributor did not strictly conform to Rule 9(1)(g) CENVAT Credit Rules and Rule 4A(2) Service Tax Rules, and (2) validity of invoking the extended limitation period. The legal outcome: the Tribunal held that procedural document defects alone do not defeat substantive entitlement to CENVAT credit where the availment and admissibility of services are undisputed, and that the extended period cannot be invoked absent evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression; the demand and penalty were set aside as time-barred. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448184