https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448562 The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a Cooperative Bank, determining that the demand for 6% payment under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was not sustainable due to the limitation issue. The tribunal found no suppression of facts or malafide intent by the appellant, as they had regularly filed returns and corresponded with the department. The show cause notice was issued beyond the normal limitation period, rendering the demand unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. en-us Thu, 04 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Jan 2024 13:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448562 The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a Cooperative Bank, determining that the demand for 6% payment under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was not sustainable due to the limitation issue. The tribunal found no suppression of facts or malafide intent by the appellant, as they had regularly filed returns and corresponded with the department. The show cause notice was issued beyond the normal limitation period, rendering the demand unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 04 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448562