https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768595 CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed the appeal partly. The tribunal upheld denial of CENVAT credit on training services provided to employees of another entity, ruling that such services don't qualify as input services merely because bills were paid by the appellant. However, CESTAT allowed CENVAT credit on various other services including cable, housekeeping, security, and telecommunication services. The tribunal rejected invocation of extended period of limitation, finding no suppression of facts by the appellant. Penalty under section 78 was set aside as requisite elements of fraud or willful mis-statement were absent. Matter remanded for calculating recoverable CENVAT credit and interest within normal limitation period. en-us Wed, 09 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Apr 2025 08:32:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768595 CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed the appeal partly. The tribunal upheld denial of CENVAT credit on training services provided to employees of another entity, ruling that such services don't qualify as input services merely because bills were paid by the appellant. However, CESTAT allowed CENVAT credit on various other services including cable, housekeeping, security, and telecommunication services. The tribunal rejected invocation of extended period of limitation, finding no suppression of facts by the appellant. Penalty under section 78 was set aside as requisite elements of fraud or willful mis-statement were absent. Matter remanded for calculating recoverable CENVAT credit and interest within normal limitation period. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 09 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768595