https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756900 CESTAT New Delhi dismissed the appeal where appellant claimed cenvat credit on immovable property during October 2014 to June 2017. The tribunal held appellant was not entitled to credit as completion certificate was issued on 20.12.2012, making the transaction a mere sale of goods outside service tax purview. The appellant's reliance on Rule 6 Explanation-3 was misconceived. Extended limitation period under Section 73(1) was properly invoked as appellant knew credit was unavailable post-completion certificate. Penalty under Section 78 and interest levy were upheld. en-us Thu, 08 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Aug 2024 08:24:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756900 CESTAT New Delhi dismissed the appeal where appellant claimed cenvat credit on immovable property during October 2014 to June 2017. The tribunal held appellant was not entitled to credit as completion certificate was issued on 20.12.2012, making the transaction a mere sale of goods outside service tax purview. The appellant's reliance on Rule 6 Explanation-3 was misconceived. Extended limitation period under Section 73(1) was properly invoked as appellant knew credit was unavailable post-completion certificate. Penalty under Section 78 and interest levy were upheld. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 08 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756900