https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766811 CESTAT Allahabad ruled in favor of appellant on multiple service tax issues. The tribunal held that extended period of limitation could not be invoked as subsequent judgment cannot justify such invocation, restricting demand to normal limitation period. Appellant was entitled to threshold exemption under Notification 33/2012-ST as they did not provide branded services. However, Cenvat credit was denied for documents beyond one-year period from issuance date, violating Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules. Penalties under Section 78 were set aside due to improper invocation of extended limitation. Matter was remanded to original authority for re-quantification of demand within normal limitation period. en-us Tue, 04 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Mar 2025 13:25:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766811 CESTAT Allahabad ruled in favor of appellant on multiple service tax issues. The tribunal held that extended period of limitation could not be invoked as subsequent judgment cannot justify such invocation, restricting demand to normal limitation period. Appellant was entitled to threshold exemption under Notification 33/2012-ST as they did not provide branded services. However, Cenvat credit was denied for documents beyond one-year period from issuance date, violating Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules. Penalties under Section 78 were set aside due to improper invocation of extended limitation. Matter was remanded to original authority for re-quantification of demand within normal limitation period. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 04 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766811