https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753383 The CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal, setting aside the original order demanding service tax on consulting engineer services. The tribunal held that Cenvat credit was properly availed based on valid invoices, despite the department's objection regarding address discrepancy due to office relocation. The court ruled this was merely a procedural lapse and substantial benefit could not be denied on such grounds. The extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked as the appellant filed regular ST-3 returns and the department failed to prove suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. The demand was barred by limitation and the appellant was held not liable for the alleged service tax liability. en-us Thu, 30 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 May 2024 08:38:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753383 The CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal, setting aside the original order demanding service tax on consulting engineer services. The tribunal held that Cenvat credit was properly availed based on valid invoices, despite the department's objection regarding address discrepancy due to office relocation. The court ruled this was merely a procedural lapse and substantial benefit could not be denied on such grounds. The extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked as the appellant filed regular ST-3 returns and the department failed to prove suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. The demand was barred by limitation and the appellant was held not liable for the alleged service tax liability. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 30 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753383