https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753478 CESTAT Allahabad set aside the demand for recovery of CENVAT Credit with interest and penalty against a rent-a-cab service operator. The tribunal held that extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) could not be invoked as revenue failed to establish suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax. Following precedents from Gujarat HC and CESTAT Allahabad, the court ruled that mere procedural violation of notification conditions does not constitute suppression warranting extended limitation period. The demand was held barred by limitation and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 28 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Jun 2024 08:03:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753478 CESTAT Allahabad set aside the demand for recovery of CENVAT Credit with interest and penalty against a rent-a-cab service operator. The tribunal held that extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) could not be invoked as revenue failed to establish suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax. Following precedents from Gujarat HC and CESTAT Allahabad, the court ruled that mere procedural violation of notification conditions does not constitute suppression warranting extended limitation period. The demand was held barred by limitation and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753478