https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451016 The CESTAT Allahabad ruled in favor of the appellant in a service tax recovery case involving renting of immovable property services. The appellant had claimed exemption under Notification 6/2005-ST while taking CENVAT credit, which the department discovered through ST-3 returns filed for April-September 2008. The tribunal found no suppression of facts since the appellant had disclosed the CENVAT credit details in their returns, which were acknowledged by department officials. The show cause notice invoking extended limitation period for 2006-07 was held bad in law due to lack of suppression grounds. The demand was barred by limitation, and penalties under Sections 77-78 were set aside. Appeal allowed. en-us Tue, 05 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:40:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451016 The CESTAT Allahabad ruled in favor of the appellant in a service tax recovery case involving renting of immovable property services. The appellant had claimed exemption under Notification 6/2005-ST while taking CENVAT credit, which the department discovered through ST-3 returns filed for April-September 2008. The tribunal found no suppression of facts since the appellant had disclosed the CENVAT credit details in their returns, which were acknowledged by department officials. The show cause notice invoking extended limitation period for 2006-07 was held bad in law due to lack of suppression grounds. The demand was barred by limitation, and penalties under Sections 77-78 were set aside. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 05 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451016