https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759856 The CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Rule 15(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. The appellant had availed CENVAT credit of Rs.63,58,370/- before paying service tax on reverse charge basis, with delays of 3-7 days in April and November 2007. The tribunal found no mala fide intention or suppression of facts, noting the appellant paid applicable interest when the error was pointed out during audit. The extended period of limitation was deemed unjustified for this clerical mistake, as the appellant eventually paid the service tax and interest before the show cause notice was issued. en-us Wed, 09 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Oct 2024 08:27:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759856 The CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Rule 15(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. The appellant had availed CENVAT credit of Rs.63,58,370/- before paying service tax on reverse charge basis, with delays of 3-7 days in April and November 2007. The tribunal found no mala fide intention or suppression of facts, noting the appellant paid applicable interest when the error was pointed out during audit. The extended period of limitation was deemed unjustified for this clerical mistake, as the appellant eventually paid the service tax and interest before the show cause notice was issued. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 09 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759856