https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314294 The CESTAT Allahabad ruled in favor of the appellant, a motor vehicle and business auxiliary service provider, who had mistakenly taken Cenvat credit on common input services. Due to a law change, trading was exempted as a service, leading to a failure to reverse the credit as required by Rule 6(3). Although the appellant rectified the error and paid interest, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld a penalty. The Tribunal, recognizing the breach as venial and without contumacious conduct, set aside the penalties and allowed the appeals, granting the appellant consequential relief. en-us Thu, 05 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 May 2024 20:49:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314294 The CESTAT Allahabad ruled in favor of the appellant, a motor vehicle and business auxiliary service provider, who had mistakenly taken Cenvat credit on common input services. Due to a law change, trading was exempted as a service, leading to a failure to reverse the credit as required by Rule 6(3). Although the appellant rectified the error and paid interest, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld a penalty. The Tribunal, recognizing the breach as venial and without contumacious conduct, set aside the penalties and allowed the appeals, granting the appellant consequential relief. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 05 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314294