https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761277 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed appellant's appeal regarding cenvat credit denial. The tribunal held that cenvat credit cannot be denied solely for non-filing of ST-3 returns, as appellant had not claimed credit on capital goods, making Rule 4(4) inapplicable. The demand under advertising service was set aside since adjudicating authority confirmed it under different category (selling advertisement space), and wrong categorization cannot sustain demand for pre-July 2012 period when service categories were statutory. Penalty above Rs. 4,78,239 was set aside as appellant had paid admitted service tax with interest and 15% penalty. en-us Wed, 06 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Nov 2024 08:48:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761277 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed appellant's appeal regarding cenvat credit denial. The tribunal held that cenvat credit cannot be denied solely for non-filing of ST-3 returns, as appellant had not claimed credit on capital goods, making Rule 4(4) inapplicable. The demand under advertising service was set aside since adjudicating authority confirmed it under different category (selling advertisement space), and wrong categorization cannot sustain demand for pre-July 2012 period when service categories were statutory. Penalty above Rs. 4,78,239 was set aside as appellant had paid admitted service tax with interest and 15% penalty. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 06 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761277